1 2025:CGHC:35707 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1524 of 2019 1 - Rajeshwari Wd/o Late Rajan Prasad Aged About 33 Years By Caste Ahir, R/o Village Narayanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Nagendra Prasad Yadav S/o Late Rajan Prasad Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Rajeshwari, By Caste Ahir, R/o Village Narayanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Ku. Jyoti D/o Late Rajan Prasad Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Rajeshwari, By Caste Ahir, R/o Village Narayanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Minor Ku. Puja D/o Late Rajan Prasad Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Rajeshwari, By Caste Ahir, R/o Village Narayanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Purnamasiya Wd/o Late Keshav Prasad Aged About 62 Years By Caste Ahir, R/o Village Narayanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Rai Singh S/o Nohar Gond Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Ketka, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Trailer Bearing Registration No. C.G. -15-Ac-4790)., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2 - Mohd. Mujibal Haq S/o Mohd. Ansarul Haq Aged About 47 Years R/o J.M.Q. Colony, Bishrampur, Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Trailer Bearing Registration No. C.G. -15-Ac-4790)., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Division Office, 2rd Floor, Gurukripa Tower Vayapar Vihar, Behind Amber Auto Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Trailer Bearing Registration No. C.G. -15-Ac-4790), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Yamini Kaser, Advocate on behalf of Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Mahima Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 24/07/2025 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 22.06.2019 passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 62/2018. 2. The motor accidental death of late Rajan Prasad due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. CG 15 AC 4790 by the Non-Applicant No. 1, owned by the Non-Applicant No. 2 and insured by the Non-Applicant No. 3 is not in dispute and therefore, this Court is not adverting the facts of the case and is only dealing with the grounds raised seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation assessing the 3 income of the deceased as Rs. 9,000/- per month only overlooking the evidence of the claimants as also, the employer that the deceased was engaged as a driver of the Trailor Truck as also, the date of accident dated 15.02.2018. She next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding sufficient amount of compensation under other conventional heads. Therefore, the amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels for the Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Income of the deceased is assessed by the Claims Tribunal, considering evidence of the employer i.e. Dinesh Kumar Mittal (AW-3) wherein, he stated that he was paying Rs. 9,000/- as salary to the deceased. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 6. So far as submission of the counsel for the appellant that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased on lower side is concerned, perusal of the deposition of witness Dinesh Kumar Mittal (AW-3) who is stated to be the owner of the Trailor and Transporter, in his evidence, he has stated that the deceased was driving the vehicle in alternate days and was being paid Rs. 9,000/- per month as salary. He also stated that he was also paying Rs. 1,500/- p.m. towards diet to the deceased. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed income of deceased as Rs. 9,000/- per month, considering evidence of Dinesh Kumar Mittal (AW – 3), 4 however, not considered his evidence in entirety. Allowance of Rs. 1,500/- p.m. should also be his income as such, to assess, total income of the deceased, both the heads are to be considered together and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, income of the deceased would be 10,500/- instead of Rs. 9,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the age of the deceased based on the School Register has held to be 44 ½ years and therefore, added 25% of the established income towards the loss of future prospects, applied deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses and multiplier of 14, which are to the tune of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 which does not call for any interference. 8. The learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of consortium which is in according to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). However, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- to the Applicant/Claimant No. 1 only i.e. the widow of the deceased. The award of consortium is further clarified by the Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the 5 Appellants/Claimants No. 2 to 5 are children and mother of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental and filial consortium (total Rs. 1,60,000/-) respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 9. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 10. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.10,500/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 44 ½ 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 25% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs. 13,125/- (10500 + 2625). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,57,500/- (13,125 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.1,18,125/- (1,57,500 – 39,375). By applying multiplier of 14, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.16,53,750/- (1,18,125 x 14). Besides this, Appellants No. 2 to 5 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards parental and filial consortium. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Pranay Sethi (Supra) has observed that there shall be increase of 10% on the amount of compensation awarded under the other conventional heads after three years and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly. 6 12. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.19,06,750/- (16,53,750 + 44,000 + 44,000 + 44,000 + 44,000 + 44,000 + 16,500 + 16,500). This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. 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. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 15. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey