1 2025:CGHC:29105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1307 of 2018 1 - Mamta Bai W/o Late Manesar Sonwani, Aged About 22 Years R/o Bhalesur,p.S.. Suhela Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 2 - Tarun Kumar S/o Late Manesar Sonwani Aged About 1 Years R/o Bhalesur,p.S.. Suhela Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Jethuram, S/o Late Sardari Sonwani, Aged About 65 Years R/o Bhalesur, P.S. Suhela Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - Sham Bai W/o Jethu Ram Aged About 64 Years R/o Bhalesur,p.S.. Suhela Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 5 - Dhaneshwar, S/o Jethuram Sonwani Aged About 18 Years R/o Bhalesur,p.S.. Suhela Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Mukhdev S/o Sofilal Yadav, R/o Village Hirapur (Behind Police Post), P.S.Amanaka, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashok Pandey, S/o B.D. Pandey PS. Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, Mahoba Heights, Mahoba Bazar, G.E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.05 17:07:41 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 30.06.2025 1 Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 07.05.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.730/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 2 Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 01.02.2016 at about 9:00 PM while the complainant was going on Motorcycle bearing registration no. CG-04-CM-9561 with two others, near village Mohra, Bhatapara, Distt. Baloda Bazar (C.G.), respondent No.1 had parked his vehicle i.e. Trailer No.CG-04-JC-7672 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) on the middle of the road without any indication or parking light etc. At the time of accident, his motorcycle was being driven carefully and at normal speed, but due to wrong parking of respondent No. 1,they got dashed with the said Trailer, sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. 3 The claimants have filed the claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.37,40,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, motorcycle was being driven by Maneshwar Sonwani (deceased), he was aged about 24 years, working as Mason and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. 3 4 Respondents No.1 and 2/non-applicants No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte before the learned Claims Tribunal. 5 The respondent No.3 filed its written statement in which it has denied the contents of the petition and further stated that the offending vehicle was stationed vehicle and the deceased was riding on vehicle being driven in triple riding capacity. Thus, the deceased himself being doing violation, cannot take benefit of his own wrong. FIR was lodged against the deceased-driver of the motorcycle, wherein due to his death, final report has been submitted. As per FIR deceased-driver was found to be rash and negligent. It has been further pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of both the vehicles and Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6 On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 24 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. While adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 18, awarded an amount of Rs.6,80,400/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.30,000/- towards other conventional heads, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.7,10,400/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has further held that the deceased-driver was also responsible to the accident to the 4 extent of 50% and while deducting 50% of the amount towards contributory negligence, has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,55,200/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. 7 Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% amount towards contributory negligence as the deceased was not responsible for the accident. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 8 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that indisputably the deceased along with two persons were travelling on a motorcycle, which is statutorily prohibited under Section 128 of the M.V. Act. He further submits that triple riding on two wheeler whose seating capacity is prescribed to be two, there would be congestion to the rider and he might have lost control resulting into an accident. As such, the Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation. He further submits that after 5 appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has passed just compensation to the claimants, which needs no interference. 9 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10 Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.3,000/- per month while working as Mason, but has not produced any evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove income as pleaded in their claim application, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, income of deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. The date of accident was 01.02.2016, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to hold engagement of deceased in semi skilled work and his income to be assessed to Rs.5,860/- per month. 11 The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was 24 years of age, there is no conclusive proof with regard to the age. Based on the available materials, the Court reckon the same as 24 years as contended by the claimants. In 6 the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2016, and this Court has reckon the income of deceased as Rs.5,860/- per month, i.e. Rs.70,320/- per annum while doing the work of Mason. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age with no fixed income, 40% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.98,448/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.73,836/-. After applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.13,29,048/-. 12 The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to 7 be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 13 On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.5,860/- per month Rs.70,320/- per annum 2. 40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 70,320 + 28,128 = Rs.98,448/- 3. 1/4th of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 98,448 / 4 = Rs.24,612/- Rs.73,836/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 18 applied 73,836 x 18 Rs.13,29,048/- 5. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the five claimants @ Rs.40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.2,40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.16,05,048/- After deducting 50% towards contributory negligence as per learned Claims Tribunal 16,05,048 / 2 Rs.8,02,524/- 8 14 The Claims Tribunal has held in paragraph-16 of the impugned award that the balance is required to be maintained between the just and reasonable compensation and exorbitant demands of compensation. Person failing or lacking in his duties must suffer proportionately. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire material available on record, such contribution in the peculiar fact that the offending vehicle was a stationed vehicle, was determined 50% on the part of the deceased person. This Court, has affirmed the said finding of the learned Claims Tribunal. 15 After deducting 50% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased-driver, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.8,02,524/- (16,05,048 / 2). 16 In the said circumstance, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,02,524/-. After deducting Rs.3,55,200/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.4,47,324/-. 17 In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein- above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.4,47,324/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 9 18 The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 19 Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh