1 2025:CGHC:28341 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1438 of 2019 1 - Smt. Savita Bai W/o Late Aanand Tandon Aged About 38 Years 2 - Sangeeta D/o Late Aanand Tandon Aged About 14 Years Minor 3 - Shivlochan S/o Late Aanand Tandon Aged About 12 Years Minor 4 - Trilochan S/o Late Aanand Tandon Aged About 10 Years No.2 to 4 are minors, through : legal gaurdian Mother Smt. Savita Bai. All are R/o Village Gopibandpara, Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. -----Appellants versus 1 - Sandeep Singh Verma S/o Bihari Lal Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Jhottha Thana Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Car No. C.G. 28/e./ 5841), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Anjana Devi W/o Late Mahant Yogendra Kumar Das Aged About 55 Years R/o Chhoteraja Bada Lormi Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Rama Trade Center Old Bus Station Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate with Ms. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 27/06/2025 BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.14 11:03:06 +0530 2 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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 14.03.2019 passed in Claim Case No.41/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.6,64,000/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application was filed by the appellants/claimants being the legal representative of the deceased Anand Tandon, stating that on 10.04.2018 at 9:00 pm, deceased Anand Tandon was going from Pandaria to village Koylari as pillion rider along with his friend Kamlesh Jangde and Santosh Kumar, when they reached near bridge of village Bisesara, non-applicant no. 01, driving his vehicle car no. CG-28/E/5841 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the applicants, due to which Anand Tandon, suffered serious and life-threatening injuries on his head, both hands and legs. He succumbed to injuries during treatment at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 45 years of healthy man, was working as Mason and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants being the widow and children were dependent upon the deceased. The claimants sought total compensation of Rs.36,00,000/- from the respondents under different heads. 3. Non-applicant No.1 filed reply to the claim application. While refuting the pleadings made in the application denied the happening of accident. The income and the occupation of the deceased was also 3 denied. Respondent No.3 by filing the reply to the claim application also denied the happening of accident. It was pleaded that the claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation on false and fabricated grounds. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.6,64,000/- and fastened liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to satisfy the award. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation in a fatal accident case, by assessing income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month overlooking the date of accident i.e. 10.04.2018. The learned Claims Tribunal also erred in applying multiplier of 10 instead of 11 because on the date of accident, deceased was 55 years of age. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considering that the claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased has rightly assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis, which does not call for any interference. He submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 8. Perusal of the record would show that the claimants in the application have pleaded that the deceased was working as mason and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the claimants could not be able to prove the said pleadings and the income of the deceased by producing admissible piece of evidence. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal has adopted the correct method to assess income of the deceased on notional basis. When the claimants could not be able to prove the nature of occupation and income of a person/deceased, it is for the Tribunal and the Court to assess the income of the deceased considering his age, cost of living, price index, wage structure prevailing within the area etc. to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal and Courts may also take help of minimum wages fixed by the State and prevailing on the date of accident. Minium wages of a person engaged as unskilled labour under the Act of 1948 on the date of accident was Rs.8,100/- per month. 9. In the case at hand, the claimants could not able to prove the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased by clinching evidence. In the said facts of the case I am of the view that the ends of justice would be served if the income of the deceased is taken on notional basis treating him to be doing the work of labourer earning as Rs.8,100/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. The Claims Tribunal has rightly added 10% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects for which the appellants are 5 entitled for. Though the age of the deceased was taken by the Claims Tribunal as 55 years, however, erroneously applied the multiplier of 10 instead of 11. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 11 should have been applied for the age group between 51 to 55. It is ordered accordingly. The Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4 towards personal expenses of the deceased. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- to the appellant No.1 towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- for funeral expenses and no amount was awarded to the appellants No.2 to 4 towards loss of consortium. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, has quantified the amount of compensation to be awarded under the head loss of estate and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. Hence, the award of Rs.40,000/- towards funeral expenses is modified and Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the claimants towards funeral expenses. In case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra) has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. The appellant No.1 is widow, appellant No.2 to 4 are children of the deceased therefore, the appellant No.1 is entitled for spousal consortium and appellants No.2 to 4 are entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 6 12. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 8,100 x 12 = 97,200.00 2. Addition of 10% towards future prospects : 97,200.00 + 9,720.00 = 1,06,920.00 3. 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,06,920.00 – 26,730.00= 80,190.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 11 : 80,190 x 11 = 8,82,090.00 5. For loss of consortium to the appellants No.1 to 4 (spousal, and parental) Rs.40,000/- each (40,000 x 4 = 1,60,000/-. : 1,60,000.00 6. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 7. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 Total Compensation : 10,72,090.00 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,72,090.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. 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