-1- 2025:CGHC:31948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1490 of 2019 1 - Amit Sahu S/o Baratu Sahu Aged About 40 Years 2 - Yuvraj Sahu S/o Amit Sahu Aged About 12 Years Minor, Through His Father Amit Sahu 3 - Kumari Deeepmala Sahu D/o Amit Sahu Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through His Father Amit Sahu All are R/o Kaira Jairam Nagar, Tehsil Masturi, Police Station Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisagrh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Saukhi Lal Kewat S/o Chamra Kewat Aged About 40 Years Driver Of The Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg-15 A 7346, R/o Village Machkhanda, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil Sipat, District - Bilsapur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bablu Singh Rajput S/o Harlal Singh Rajput Owner Of The Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg 15 A 7346, R/o Jhalipur Bhalapur Mungeli, Tahsil And District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through - Division Manager, Division Office Rama Trade Center First Floor In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Gajanand Ratre, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None appears though served For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.16 10:58:18 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 10/07/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (CG) vide award dated 30th January 2019 passed in Claim Case No.536 of 2018. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur pleading therein that on 10.06.2018, Manjulata Sahu was going to Jayaram Nagar, walking on the left side of the road along with her son Yuvraj from her house to open her betel shop. As soon as they reached near Bhagat Singh High School, the driver of a truck- Hywa bearing registration No.CG-15-A-7346, driving the truck rashly and negligently dashed Manjulata Sahu from behind as a result of which Manjulata Sahu suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Deceased Manjulata Sahu was 32-year-old woman, who was earning Rs 15,000/- per month by running a grocery and betel shop and was maintaining applicants from the said income. Applicant No. 1 is husband and applicants No. 2 and 3 are children of deceased, who were dependent on the income of deceased. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, applicants have been deprived of her income. They prayed -3- for total compensation of Rs.8,76,400/- from non-applicants. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 were proceeded ex-parte in the claim proceedings, no written statement has been filed by them. 5. Non-applicants No.3/Insurance Company by filing its written statement has denied the pleadings made in the claim application. It was further pleaded that accident had not occurred due to negligence of non- applicant no. 1 but due to the negligence of the deceased herself. On the date of accident, non-applicant No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. At the time of accident, the said vehicle was being driven by applicant No. 1 Saukhilal Kewat without valid permit, fitness. In such a situation, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Manjulata Sahu suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found to be proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicant No.3/insurance company liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4500/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads and awarded Rs.8,76,400/ - as compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased only Rs.4500/- per month overlooking the date of accident i.e. 10.06.2018 -4- and pleadings made in the claim application that deceased on the date of accident was running a grocery and betel shop by which she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered wages prevalent on the date of accident or the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. He also submits that award of compensation under other conventional heads is also not sufficient. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under head of ‘loss of consortium’ to claimants No.2 & 3 who are children of the deceased. He prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation accordingly. 8. Despite service of notice no representation has been made by respondent No.1 & 2. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the claim case. 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants with regard to assessment of income as Rs.4500/- per month by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, date of accident is 10.06.2018. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded the occupation of deceased of running a betel/grocery shop and her income to be Rs.15,000/- per month. True it is that claimants have failed to prove income of deceased by placing admissible piece of -5- evidence, however, in absence of admissible piece of evidence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased considering the other factors like cost of living, price index, wage rates structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. 12. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification, monthly income for ‘unskilled labourer’ has been fixed as Rs.7930/- per month. Hence, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.7930/- per month instead of Rs.4500/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased on the date of accident to be 32 years, has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects. Looking to the number of dependents, learned Tribunal has also made correct deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of deceased which is in tune of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. Learned Claims Tribunal looking to the age of deceased as 32 years, has also correctly applied multiplier of 16. 14. Learned Claims Tribunal has further correctly awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral -6- expenses’. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’ to claimant No.1 only. However, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to claimants No. 2 & 3 who are children of deceased. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, appellants/claimants No. 2 & 3 being children of deceased will be entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of parental consortium’. It is ordered accordingly. 15. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 7930 x 12 = 95160 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (95160 x 40% =38064) 95160 + 38064 = 1,33,224 (C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (1,33,224 x 1/3= 44408) 1,33,224 - 44408 = 88816/- (D) Multiplier of 16 88816 x 16 = 14,21,056 : Rs. 14,21,056 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Spousal Consortium to claimant/appellant No.1 (husband) : (+) Rs. 40,000 5. Loss of parental consortium to claimants/appellants No. 2 & 3 (children) @ 40,000/- each (+) Rs. 80,000 Total compensation Rs. 15,71,056 -7- 16. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 15,71,056/- instead of Rs.8,76,400/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 17. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen