1 2025:CGHC:27158 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1472 of 2019 1 - Smt. Sunita Netam W/o Late Naresh Kumar Netam Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Jali, Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prakash Kumar S/o Late Naresh Kumar Netam Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Netam, R/o Village Jali, Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Aakash Kumar S/o Late Naresh Kumar Netam Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Netam, R/o Village Jali, Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Vikash Kumar S/o Late Naresh Kumar Netam Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Netam, R/o Village Jali, Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Vishal Kumar S/o Late Naresh Kumar Netam Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Netam, R/o Village Jali, Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Suni Bai W/o Late Chhotelal Netam Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Jali, Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants Versus 1 - Aanand Kumar S/o Yamuna Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Saranga, Thana - Barul District Aurangabad Bihar. Hall Mukam - K.K. Enterprises Sadar Road Deepka Thana Deepka, Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C. G. 12/ S./ 1382), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ritesh Ranjan S/o Birendra Prasad Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Sahid SHUBHAM Bhagat Singh Korba Chhattisgarh, ( Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Trailer No. C.G. 12 / S/ 1382), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Rama Trade Center, 2nd Floor, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 12/ S/ 1382), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singhroul, Advocate For Non-appellants : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 24/06/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 08.05.2019 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 512/2017. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 07.08.2017, when Naresh Kumar Netam (since deceased) was traveling towards Jali on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 10 AH 0691 and when he reached near Dhobni Pond at Beltara main road, Bilaspur, at that time, offending vehicle i.e Trailor bearing registration no. CG 12 S 1382 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Naresh Kumar Netam and caused accident. In the said accident, deceased Naresh Kumar Netam suffered serious injuries and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 239/2017, P.S. Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3 3. In the claim application, the appellants/claimants have pleaded that the deceased Naresh Kumar Netam was aged about 35 years and was doing the work of Mason and earning Rs. 500/- per day. The claimants were dependent on the deceased for their livelihood and claimed compensation of Rs. 45,00,000/- 4. The Non-applicants No. 1 & 2, driver and owner of the offending vehicle pleaded that the vehicle was driven by the Non-Applicant No. 1 in accordance with the rules and it was the deceased who was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, he met with an accident with the Trailor. They further contended that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non- Applicant No. 3, hence, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Non-applicant No. 3. 5. The Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that on the date of accident, the Non-applicant No. 1 did not possess valid and effective driving license as also, there was no valid permit and fitness certificate with the offending vehicle and thus, there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record has recorded a finding the deceased died due to the motor accidental injuries suffered by him and the offending vehicle was involved in the said accident. Learned Claims Tribunal further recorded that the vehicle was not being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance 4 Company and awarded as sum of Rs. 16,68,688/0 as compensation to the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The claimants in their claim application has specifically pleaded that the deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs. 5,00/- per day. In support of their said pleading, they have also examined Ramlal Maravi (AW-3). However, the learned Claims Tribunal erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,930/- per month as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for ‘Unskilled Labourer’. He next contended that the amount of compensation awarded under the other heads is also on lower side. Liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Non-applicant No. 3/insurance Company. Hence, the appeal be heard finally at the motion stage. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would oppose the submission of the counsel for the appellants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and fair. Claims Tribunal has assessed the compensation on all the heads under which the claimants are entitled for. In absence of proof regarding nature of occupation and income of deceased by admissible piece of evidence, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, taking note of the wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 which does not call for any interference. 5 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case and the copy of the award passed. 10.The accident and the death of late Naresh Kumar Netam due to the motor accidental injuries is not in dispute. The learned counsel for the appellant made two fold submissions before this Court, one with respect to the assessment of the income of the deceased to be on the lower side and second, not awarding proper amount of compensation under the other heads. 11.So far as the submission of the counsel for the appellant with regard to the assessment of the income of the deceased by the learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, in the claim application, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs. 500/- per day. To prove the said pleading, claimants have examined the Appellant No. 1 i.e. Smt. Sunita Netam as AW-1 and witness Ramlal Maravi as AW – 3. Witness Ramlal Maravi (AW-3) is an independent witness who in his evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal has stated that the deceased was working under him as Mason and earning Rs. 500/- per day. The wages is being paid by the witness Ramlal Maravi (AW-3). 12.From the aforementioned evidence, it is apparent that the deceased was working as Mason, however, with respect to the income of deceased, except the oral statement of Ramlal Maravi (AW-3), there is no other admissible piece of evidence on record. In absence of any admissible piece of evidence, the income as pleaded and stated by the witnesses that the deceased was earning Rs. 500/- per day is not acceptable. However, in the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased according to the 6 wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period in between 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 treating the deceased to be Skilled Labourer in which, the wages for the Skilled Labourer for ‘C’ Zone area is mentioned as Rs. 9,360/-. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 9,360/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 13.The learned Claims Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased to be 35 years and considering the number of claimants/dependents to be six, have rightly applied the deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses, multiplier of 16 and have also rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards the future prospects which is in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 14. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the Appellant No. 1 and Rs. 15,000/- each under the head of the funeral expenses and loss of estate. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC, Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the types of consortium and held that the there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for wife/husband, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellants No. 2 to 5 are children and Appellant No. 6 is the mother of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental and filial consortium (total Rs. 2,00,000/-). It is ordered accordingly. 7 15. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 16. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.9,360/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 35 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.13,104/- (9360+3744). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,57,248/- (13,104 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 1/4th of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,17,936/- (1,57,248 – 39,312). By applying multiplier of 16, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.18,86,976/- (1,17,936 x 16). Besides this, Appellants No. 1 to 6 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards spousal, parental and filial consortium, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nanu Ram (Supra). Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 17. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.21,56,976/- (18,86,976 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 8 18. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 5 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 20. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey