1 2025:CGHC:28855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1588 of 2019 1 - Smt. Manisha Wd/o - Late Ajay Kumar Aged About 21 Years 2 - Minor Anshu Ude Mother, S/o - Ajay Kumar Aged About 2 months, Minor Hence Represented Through His Mother, 3 - Ratan Singh S/o - Bandhan Singh Aged About 49 Years 4 - Smt.. Indra Bai W/o - Ratan Singh Aged About 47 Years 5 - Sanjay Kumar S/o - Ratan Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o - Village Karra Navapara, Tahsil And Police Station Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh, --- Appellants versus 1 - Ravindra Singh Rajput S/o - Panchram Rajput 2 - Smt. Surastin Rajpur W/o - Krishna Kumar Rajput, Both are R/o - Jhaphal, Post Office And Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Shop No.-G1/12, Zone-1, Vyapar Vihar, Near Renault Showroom, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer). ---Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Priya Kaiwartya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/06/2025 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 Additional 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.06.2019 passed in Claim Case No.145/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.12,47,500/- 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 Ajay Kumar stating that on 10.9.2018 at about 2.30 pm Ajay Kumar was returning with his relative Harish Kumar Korram after filling petrol in his motorcycle from Kosabadi Petrol Pump. At that relevant time, non-applicant No.1, driver of Jai Kishan Bus No. CG28H9671, while driving the bus rashly and negligently dashed Ajay Kumar and caused an accident. Ajay Kumar was taken to Community Health Center where he died during treatment. It was pleaded that at the time of the accident, deceased Ajay Kumar was 28 years old, was doing carpentry work and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from it. 3. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company filed its reply resisting the claim. It was pleaded that accident was not occurred with the offending vehicle. Deceased, Ajay Kumar, met with an accident as a result of his driving and falling from the motorcycle because of his own negligence. At the time of accident, non-applicant was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was being plied without any permit and fitness certificate, as such there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and the evidence brought on record by the respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of 3 Rs.12,47,500/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation in a fatal accident case. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month overlooking the occupation and the date of accident i.e. 10.09.2018. He further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper amount of compensation on other conventional head. 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. She 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 8. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellants that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- is concerned, claimants in their application though have pleaded the occupation of the deceased as Carpenter 4 and earning as Rs.10,000/- per month, however, no clinching evidence and admissible piece of evidence is brought on record. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis, however erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. 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 notionally 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 labour during the period from 01.04.2018 till 30.09.2018 was fixed by the Authority under the Act of 1948 was Rs.7,930/- 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 as Rs.7,930/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal taking note of the age of the deceased as 28 years and the number of applicants has added 50% of assessed income towards future prospects, which in view of the decision in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 is not correct and it would be 40%. It is ordered accordingly. The Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the 5 deduction of 1/4 and the multiplier of 17, which does not call for any interference. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded lump sum amount of Rs.75,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. No amount was awarded towards loss of estate and for loss of consortium. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has quantified the amount of compensation to be awarded under the head loss estate and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, however, no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate. The amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is not sustainable, which is required to be reduced to Rs.15,000/- as per the decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the appellants towards loss of estate. It is ordered accordingly. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 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 is son, appellant No.3 and 4 are parents and appellant No.5 is brother of the deceased therefore, the appellant No.1 is entitled for spousal consortium and appellant No.2 is entitled for parental consortium and appellants No.3 and 4 are entitled for filial 6 consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. The award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium subsumes compensation under the head of loss of love and affection and hence award of Rs.75,000/- towards love and affection is not sustainable and accordingly it is set-aside. 14. 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 : 7,930 x 12 = 95,160.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 95,160.00 + 38,064.00 = 1,33,224.00 3. 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,33,224.00 – 33,306.00= 99,918.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 17 : 99,918 x 17 = 16,98,606.00 5. For loss of consortium to the appellants No.1 to 4 (spousal, parental and filial) 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 : 18,88,606.00 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,88,606.00. 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. 7 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