1 2025:CGHC:14070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1155 of 2020 1 - Mumtaj Husain S/o Makbul Husain Aged About 49 Years 2 - Smt. Sabina Begam W/o Mumtaj Husain Aged About 49 Years 3 - Nafisa Bano D/o Mumtaj Husain Aged About 23 Years 4 - Mohsin Husain S/o Mumtaj Aged About 22 Years 5 - Alisha Bano D/o Mumtaj Aged About 20 Years All are resident of Nurani Choak , Rajatalab, Pandri , Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Mirja Shahid Beg S/o Mirja Safar Beg Aged About 32 Years, R/o. Madrasa Road, Dhobi Gali, Baijnathpara, P.S. Kotwali, Raipur (District – Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Mirja Jafar Beg S/o Shri Mirja Id Beg Resident Of Ward No. 33, Near New Basti Church, Rajatalab Pandri District Raipur Chhattisgarh,( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. 04 M.F. 1027), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Manager , Ifco Tokiya General Insurance Company Ltd. Shop No. 205, Second Floor , M.M. Silver Plaza Near Mining Office Mahavir Nagar Ring Road No. 01 , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. 04 M.F. 1027). --- Respondents BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.27 14:27:57 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. Arya Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 24/03/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 27.02.2020 passed in Claim Case No.321/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.9,37,200/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 17.02.2019 at about 9.40 in the night, the deceased, Farhaj Hussain, was riding on motor cycle as a pillion rider driven by respondent No.1, bearing registration number 04 MF 1027, and were going towards Bhagat Singh Square. Due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the motorcycle met with an accident, as a consequence of which, the Farhaj Hussain (since deceased) suffered grievous injuries, which ultimately led to his death. 3 3. Claimants/appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.64,82,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 18 years, working in the Travels House and earning Rs.36,000/- per month. It was also pleaded that the claimants/appellants were dependent upon the deceased and he was the sole bread earner of his family. Claimants have also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like funeral expenses, for love and affection and for loss of estate etc. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their replying denying the averments made in the application. It was pleaded that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligently driving of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is falsely implicated in this case and there is no role of respondent No.1 in the alleged accident. 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application, while denying the pleadings made therein, has further pleaded that the deceased was riding the motor cycle as pillion rider for which no additional premium has been paid. Hence, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the respondent No.1 was not having any valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. There was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- 4 applicant No.1, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellants submits that Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the evidence brought on record regarding the income of deceased and erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month as notional income. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have calculated the amount of compensation based on the Minimum Wages Act as fixed by the competent authority, however, the income of the deceased has been assessed only to the tune of Rs. 6,000/-, which is on lower side. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amounts towards loss of filial consortium to the appellants No.1 and 2. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on each and every head. The deduction and multiplier are rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal. The impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 5 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 and 2 are driver and owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. It is also not in dispute that appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Farhaz Hussain. 11. The appellants/claimants have pleaded and stated in their evidence that at the time of accident, deceased was 18 years of age, however, no documentary proof has been brought on record to prove the age of deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased to be of 16 years only on the basis of the postmortem report. The age of the deceased mentioned in the postmortem report cannot be treated as direct proof of age as it is based on scientific assessment of the body even otherwise, according to Modi Jurisprudence, there are chances of two years of deviation on either side on the age assessed scientifically by the doctors. Hence, engagement of the deceased in the work cannot be lightly washed away only because in the postmortem report, age of the deceased is shown to be 16 years to which the learned Claims Tribunal has relied upon. 12. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, it was pleaded in the application that the deceased was working in the Travels House and was earning Rs.36,000/- per month. Mumtaj Hussain (A.W.-1) has stated in his evidence that his son (deceased) used to work as Office Boy in the Travels House and earn Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month. The manager of the Travels House Vikash Chand Yadav (A.W.- 2) has stated that deceased was working in his institution as Office 6 Boy and was earing Rs.15,000/- per month. However, no documentary proof has been brought on record in order to prove the income of the deceased, therefore, in the facts of the case I find it appropriate to take help of Minimum Wages prevailing in State. As the deceased was resident of Raipur, which falls within the ‘A’ class city and as per the notification issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, income of a labourer in between 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 has been fixed as Rs.8,320/- for ‘A’ grade city. Accordingly, monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,320/- for computing his income. 13. The learned Claims Tribunal under the head future prospects, added 40% in the income of the deceased, for the purpose of computing compensation as at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 18 years and was self employed, which is correct, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.3,328/- in the monthly income of the deceased, the total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,648/-. Accordingly, annual income of the deceased works out to Rs.1,39,776/-. There is no dispute with respect to deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses and multiplier of 18 applied by the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly after deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency works out to Rs.69,888/-. After applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,57,984/-. The Claims Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards filial consortium to the appellants No.1 and 2, accordingly, a sum of 7 Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the appellants No.2 and 3 each towards filial consortium. The amount of of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses is maintained. 14. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. Loss of income/dependency : Rs. 12,57,984.00 2. For loss of filial consortium to the appellants No.1 and 2 (Rs.40,000/- each) : Rs. 80,000.00 4. For loss of estate : Rs. 15,000.00 (maintained) 5. For funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000.00 (maintained) Total Compensation : Rs. 13,67,984.00 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,67,984.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram