1 2025:CGHC:21608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1160 of 2020 1 - Smt. Dukalheen Harijan @ Sunani W/o Late Devanand Sunani, Aged About 49 Years 2 - Omprakash Harijan @ Sunani, S/o Late Devanand Sunani @ Harijan, Aged About 30 Years Both are R/o Village Haripura, District Nuapada (Odisha). --- Appellants versus 1 - Bansata Patel S/o Narayan Patel, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Deeptipur, Budhimal, Post Office And Police Station Melchamunda, District Bargarh (Odisha) (Driver Of Vehicle Bolero Pick-Up Bearing Registration No. Od 17 H/1888) 2 - Pankaj Patel, S/o Karma Patel, R/o Budhimal, Post Office And Police Station Melchamunda, District Bargarh (Odisha)..............(Non-Applicant No. 2) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Bolero Pick-Up Bearing Registration No. OD 17 H/1888). 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 3, Raipur, Pacpedi Naka, Near Prakash Swimming Pull, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Bolero Pick-Up Bearing Registration No. OD 17 H/1888). --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : None present though served. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 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 09/05/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay of 275 days in filing the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the application and the submission made on behalf of appellants. She however, submits that if this Court considers to condone the delay then it may be ordered that appellants will not be entitled for the interest for delayed period. In support of her contention, she placed reliance upon the decision in case of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797. 3. Considering the pleadings made in the application as also the submission of learned counsel for respective parties I find it appropriate to allow the I.A. No.1, and condone the delay in filing this appeal. Accordingly, the I.A. No.1 is allowed and the delay of 275 days in filing this appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. Learned counsel for respective parties submits that the liability to indemnify the amount of compensation is fastened upon respondent No.3/Insurance Company, hence with the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally at motion stage. 5. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking 3 enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.11.2019,passed in Claim Case No.413/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarded Rs.5,45,200/- as compensation in a death case. 6. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 11.12.2017 Devanand Sunani was going on his motor cycle along with one Jehru Tandi and when they reached near Junani Square at about 6 to 7 O’clock, respondent No.1/driver of Pick-up bearing registration No.OD- 17-H-1888 by driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle of Devanand Sunani and caused accident due to which, Devanand Sunani and Jehru Tandi suffered severe injuries on their head. They were immediately taken to District Hospital, Nuapada, looking to their serious condition, they were taken to Vimsar Hospital, Burla where during the course of treatment both of them died. 7. Appellants/claimants being the legal heirs of deceased Dewanand Sunani, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, the deceased was 50 years of healthy man, working in the medical field and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It was pleaded that the appellants were dependents upon the deceased. Claimants had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like loss of future income, for love and affection and loss of consortium etc. 4 8. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their reply denying the allegation made in the claim application. It was pleaded that the claim application was filed on the false and fabricated grounds. The accident occurred due to self negligence of the deceased himself. On the date of incident, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 9. Non-applicant No.3/Insurer of the offending truck denied entire allegation made in the claim application. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the motorcyclist, who was driving the said motor cycle rashly and negligently. Non-applicant was not having valid and effective driving licence and the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy, without any permit and fitness. Application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. 10. 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- 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.5,45,200/- along with interest @ 8% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 11. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellants/claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal has 5 assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month only overlooking the qualification of the deceased, who was holding the qualification of BAMS and have also undergone training from Primary Health Center, Kharihar Road, District Kalahandi, Orissa of 200 hours. The income of Rs.6,000/- assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is even otherwise much-less than the income of unskilled labour as notified by the Competent Authority-cum-Commissioner within the State of Chhattisgarh. The amount of compensation awarded under the other heads is also on lower side. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to appellant No.2. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that though the documents have been exhibited as stated by learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the qualificaiton, however, those documents have not been proved by examining any witnesses nor any witness have been examined to prove the occupation of the deceased. Hence, in the facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis. It is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 13. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 6 14. Perusal of the records of the claim case would show that claimants in the application have pleaded the occupation of deceased as medical practitioner. In support of the pleadings they have placed on record the copy of the certificate issued by the Primary Health Center, Kharihar Road, Kalahandi mentioning that the deceased underwent 200 hours training course from 01.02.81 to 30.03.81. The mark-sheet of BAMS first year is filed as Ex.P-7 and mark-sheet of BAMS second year is marked as Ex.P-8. From perusal of the aforementioned documents would show that the medical course/education i.e. BAMS has been obtained by the deceased in the year 1994 to 1996, however, the certificate of training as stated is of the year 1981, on the said date, the deceased was not possessing any medical qualification. After obtaining the BAMS course, the deceased has underwent another training at CHC, Kharihar Road from 23.09.1996 to 29.09.1996, which is issued under the signature of Medical Officer, Incharge, CHC Kharihar Road on 06.10.1996. 15. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case in the opinion of this Court even if deceased failed to produce oral with documentary evidence to prove the income as pleaded, however, in absence of any contrary evidence brought on record to disbelieve the documents placed on record it can safely be held that the deceased was not working as an ordinary labourer but was having the technical qualification of BAMS, hence, in the opinion of this Court the assessment of the income of the deceased considering him to be an ordinary labourer by the learned Claims Tribunal in the opinion of this Court is erroneous. The amount of compensation awarded to the 7 family members of the deceased should be just and proper. True it is the compensation cannot be a bonanza to the claimants, but the award of compensation is to be based on considering all the documentary and oral evidence brought on record. In the facts of the case, the deceased has to be considered much more than that of the work of labourer. Even if the claimants failed to produce any clinching evidence with respect to the nature of occupation of medical practitioner and the income of the deceased of Rs.15,000/- as pleaded in the claim application then also it is for the Claims Tribunal or the Court to assess the just income of the deceased keeping in mind all the material available on record. To assess income of the deceased, in case of self employment, some guess work is also required to be done. Considering the entirety of the facts of case as also the documentary evidence placed on record, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.6,000/- per month as assessed by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.1,20,000/-. 16. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 57 years based on the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P-9 i.e. the certificate issued by the Devghar Vidyapeeth, Bihar from where the deceased is stated to have underwent BAMS Course, hence, in the opinion of this Court the age of the deceased has been correctly assessed and accordingly the learned Claims Tribunal has also added 10% of the assessed income in the income of the deceased towards future prospects for calculating the amount of compensation, which is in 8 accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 17. The application of multiplier of 9 and deduction of 1/3 towards personal living expenses is not in dispute. Learned Claims Tribunal has further correctly awarded Rs.15,000/- each under the head of funeral expenses and for loss of estate. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- to appellant No.1 towards loss of consortium, however, it failed to award the amount of Rs.40,000/- as loss of parental consortium to the appellant No.2, who is son of deceased. Appellant No.2 is also entitled for the amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. It is ordered accordingly. 18. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the amounts under other conventional heads should be revisited and enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of every three years. In case at hand, accident is of the year 2017. Hence, the appellants are entitled for 10% enhancement on the amount under other conventional heads. So, by enhancing the amount awarded under other conventional heads at the rate of 10%, the appellants are now entitled for a sum of Rs. 16,500/- each (15000+10% increase after 3 years) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses i.e. total Rs.33,000/- under both the heads. Likewise, appellants No.1 and 2 both are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each (40000 + 9 10% increase after 3 years) i.e. Rs.88,000/- for loss of consortium (spousal and parental). 19. 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 (Rs. 10,000x12) : 1,20,000.00 2. Addition of 10% towards future prospects : 1,20,000.00 + 12,000.00 = 1,32,000.00 3. 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,32,000.00 – 44,000.00 = 88,000.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 9 : 7,92,000.00 5. For loss of consortium to appellants No.1 & 2 (spousal & parental) of Rs.44,000/- each : 88,000.00 6. For loss of estate & funeral expenses : 33,000.00 Total compensation : 9,13,000.00 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,13,000.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 10 21. It is further directed that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lakkamma (supra), the appellants will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is of 275 days. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram