1 / 7 2025:CGHC:23763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1534 of 2019 1. Smt. Sukdi Poyam W/o Late Fangu Aged About 45 Years Caste Maadiya 2. Ku. Paando D/o Late Fagnu Aged About 25 Years 3. Ku. Budri D/o Late Fagnu, Aged About 23 Years 4. Lakhmoram Poyam S/o Late Fagnu Aged About 21 Years 5. Gonchu S/o Late Fagnu Aged About 19 Years All are R/o Village Bade Kilepal Patelpara, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Balram Baghel S/o Chingduram Baghel Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bade Kilepal Pujaripara, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2. Gangoram Karma S/o Bonjaram Karma Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bade Kilepal Pujaripara, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner) 3. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Company Limited Branch Ground Floor, Vanijyik Bhawan, Dvendra Nagar, Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 13/06/2025 1. Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the award dated 02.05.2019 passed by Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 227/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166, 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 8,01,250/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 14.03.2018 at about 07.00 pm., in village Bade Kilepal Patelpara, Fagnu Poyam was going along the road to his house carrying grocery items. When he reached near the house of Chaitibai on the main road NH 63, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of motor cycle CG 17 KK 2665, while driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently, hit Fagnu Poyam from behind due to which Fagnu Poyam received grievous injuries and died on spot. A report of the accident was lodged in Police Station-Kodenar, based on which crime No. 29/2018 was registered for alleged offence under Section 304A of the IPC. 3. Appellants, who are widow and the children of deceased Fagnu Poyam, filed an application under Section 166, 140 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 17,30,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 47 years of age, was an able bodied person. At the time of the accident deceased was doing the work of labourer and was earning ₹ 7,500/- per month to support himself and his family. 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending motorcycle submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that, on the date of the accident, deceased himself collided with the motor cycle, non-applicant No. 1/ driver was not driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently, he was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending motorcycle. The offending motorcycle was insured with non-applicant No. 3- insurance company, hence the liability, if 3 / 7 any, to satisfy the amount of compensation would be upon non-applicant No.3- insurance company. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company also filed its reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application. It was further pleaded that on the date of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 did not have a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of the insurance policy. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Fagnu Poyam died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending motorcycle by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 8,01,250/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as ₹ 5,000/- per month only. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation on other conventional heads and only awarded ₹ 70,000/-. No amount of compensation under the head of loss of parental consortium was awarded to appellants No. 2 to 5. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 8. Learned counsel for respective respondents submits that the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal justified in 4 / 7 assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. Sofar as the first ground raised by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with respect to assessment of income of deceased is concerned, on the date of accident age of deceased is assessed by the Tribunal based on the post mortem report, Ext. P-6, is 50 years. To prove the nature of occupation and income, claimants have examined Smt. Sukdi Poyam, widow of deceased, as AW-1. Vaksu Vetti is examined as AW-2 to prove motor accidental death of deceased. No other dependent witnesses have been examined to prove nature of occupation and income and no documentary evidence has been produced in this regard. Claimants in their claim application have pleaded income of deceased as ₹ 7,500/- per month. Date of accident is 14.03.2018. Even if the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence then also the Tribunal ought to have assessed income of deceased on notional basis keeping in mind age of deceased, date of accident, price index, cost of living, wage structure prevailing and might also have taken help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the case at hand, as there is no evidence with respect to prevailing wage structure where the deceased was residing and working, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, Tribunal ought to have taken help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, income of deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal as ₹ 5,000/- per month is much less than what is fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, I find it 5 / 7 appropriate to assess the income of deceased on notional basis keeping in mind the minimum wages fixed under the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 for unskilled labourer ie., ₹ 7,800/- per month. However, in the pleadings appellants-claimants have pleaded income of deceased as ₹ 7,500/- per month and the same is also stated by the widow of the deceased in her court statement. Therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as ₹ 7,500/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Sofar as the second ground raised with respect to award of compensation on other conventional heads is concerned, perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal awarded ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant no. 1 which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, has explained the types of consortium ie.. spousal consortium to husband/ widow, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents of the deceased. In the case at hand, appellants no. 2 to 5 are children of the deceased and therefore they are also entitled for ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly. Claims Tribunal has rightly applied deduction of 1/4 and multiplier of 13 which is in consonance with with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC. Tribunal further added 25% towards future prospects which in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has rightly been added. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. 6 / 7 14. The monthly income of deceased is taken as ₹ 7,500/-. Upon adding 25% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ 9,375/- ie. yearly income ₹ 1,12,500/- . After deducting 1/4 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 84,375/-. Upon applying multiplier of 13 to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 10,96,875/-. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1, loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2 to 5, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 90,000/- B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 90,000 x 25% = ₹ 22,500) ₹ 90,000 + ₹ 22,500= ₹ 1,12,500/- C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,12,500 x 1/4= ₹ 28,125); ₹ 1,12,500 - ₹ 28,125 = ₹ 84,375/- D) Multiplier of 13 ₹ 84,375 x 13 = ₹ 10,96,875/- ₹ 10,96,875/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 ₹ 40,000/- Loss of Parental Consortium to Appellants No. 2 to 5 (₹ 40,000/- each) ₹ 1,60,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 15,000/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 13,26,875/- 15. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 13,26,875/- instead of ₹ 8,01,250/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any 7 / 7 amount paid to the appellants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn