1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 21 of 2017 1 - Mus. Seeta Bai Patel Wd/o Late Manharan Lal Patel, Aged About 38 Years R/o Dhelwadeeh, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Duwas Patelm S/o Late Manharan Lal Patel, Aged About 20 Years R/o Dhelwadeeh, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhagwat Prasad Patel S/o Late Manharan Lal Patel, Aged About 18 Years R/o Dhelwadeeh, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh .................Claimants, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Nilesh Kashyap S/o Late Ramadheen Kashyap, R/o In Front Of Kanoi Paper Mill, Dheka, P.O. Darrighat, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of Motor Cycle No. C.G.10 E B/3234, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Manharan Lal Rathore, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Limtara, P.O. Gataura, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of Motor Cycle No. C.G.10 E B/3234, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer Of Motor Cycle No. C.G.10 E B/3234, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.07.28 11:00:18 +0530 2 For Appellants : Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/06/2025 1. This is an appeal by the claimants against the award dated 17.11.2016 passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.24 of 2011, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,43,000/- in favour of appellant No.1/claimant No.1 fastening liability upon respondent No.3/insurance company to satisfy the award and rejected the claim of appellants No.2 and 3/claimants No.2 and 3. 2. The claimants have filed this appeal for grant/enhancement of award in a case of death in which deceased Manharan Lal Patel died in an accident occurred on 31.5.2007. 3. The case, in short, is that on the fateful day, i.e., 31.5.2007, appellant No.1’s husband and appellants No.2 and 3’s father Manharan Lal Patel (deceased) along with his friend Santosh Patel was going on the motorcycle of Santosh Patel from Bilaspur to Dhelwadeeh. The deceased was pillion rider on the motorcycle. When they reached Village Karaihapara, Ratanpur curve, respondent No.1 Nilesh by driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of Santosh Patel, as a result of which the motorcycle of Santosh Patel got dashed 3 with a truck passing from there and in the said accident the deceased suffered injuries and died on the spot. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the income of the deceased has not been properly calculated. The deceased was employed in the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), however, his pay slip has not been considered, as such it is required to be considered. Learned counsel further submits that conventional heads have also not been considered by the Claims Tribunal. Future prospects, as directed to be given in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, has also not been granted. There are three dependents, as such consortium is required to be given to each of the claimants. The deduction is also wrongly applied by the Tribunal. It should be 1/3rd in place of 1/2. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/insurance company, upon which liability has been fastened, submits that income of the deceased is not proved. The deceased was dismissed from service, as such on the date of accident, he was not in service. Therefore, the pay slip was annexed pertaining to October, 2006 whereas the accident took place on 31.5.2007. This is evident from the evidence of AW1 Sitabai Patel, widow of the deceased vide paragraph 14. So far as the dependency is concerned, it has been wrongly calculated. The other conventional heads like 4 future prospects Rs.10,000, funeral has been granted, loss of estate is required to be enhanced. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, the award is required to be modified as the Tribunal has wrongly deducted personal income as ½. There are as many as 3 claimants, as such the personal income should be deducted as 1/3rd. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards consortium. According to Pranay Sethi case (supra), consortium should be granted to the widow as well as to son and daughter of the deceased. Since the deceased was working in the SECL as Loader, however, at the time of accident, he was removed from the service, as such his income cannot be calculated on the basis of pay slip. 7. Hence, the impugned award is modified as under: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Deceased’s monthly income 4,700 2 Deceased’s yearly income Rs.4,700/- x 12 = 56,400 3 Self Deduction 56,400 x 1/3 = 18,800 4 Loss of income 56,400 – 18,800 = 37,600 5 Application of multiplier 37,600 x 15 = 5,64,000 6 Consortium (Rs.40,000 along with 10% increase in every 3 years) Rs.48,000 x 3 = 1,44,000 7 Funeral expenses (Rs.15,000 18,000 5 along with increase of 10% in every 3 years) 8 Loss of estate (Rs.15,000 along with increase of 10% in every 3 years) 18,000 Total = 7,44,000 8. Now, all the appellants/claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.7,44,000/-. 9. The award of Rs.4,43,000/- in favour of appellant No.1/claimant No.1 granted by the Claims Tribunal is thus modified to the extent shown above. 10. The other conditions of the award passed by the Claims Tribunal would be as it is. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh