1 2025:CGHC:28345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1470 of 2019 1 - Smt. Kunti Devi Sahu Wd/o Late Jagat Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Sontoli Govindpur Post Govindpur, Police Station Karra District Khunti, Jharkhand. 2 - Miss Karishma Sahu D/o Late Jagat Sahu Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Kunti Devi Sahu (Mother), Village Sontoli Govindpur Post Govindpur, Police Station Karra, District - Khunti, Jharkhand. 3 - Miss Karina Sahu S/o Late Jagat Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Kunti Devi Sahu (Mother), Village Sontoli Govindpur Post Govindpur, Police Station Karra, District - Khunti, Jharkhand. 4 - Master Nitesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Jagat Sahu Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Kunti Devi Sahu (Mother), Village Sontoli Govindpur Post Govindpur, Police Station Karra, District - Khunti, Jharkhand. 5 - Miss Laxmi Sahu D/o Late Jagat Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Kunti Devi Sahu (Mother), Village Sontoli Govindpur Post Govindpur, Police Station Karra, District - Khunti, Jharkhand. 6 - Smt. Ropani Devi W/o Sukhnath Sahu Aged About 60 Years Village Sontoli Govindpur Post Govindpur, Police Station Karra, District - Khunti, Jharkhand. 7 - Sukhnath Sahu S/o Late Shivcharana Sahu Aged About 62 Years Village Sontoli Govindpur Post Govindpur, Police Station Karra, District - Khunti, Jharkhand. ... Appellants Versus SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 1 - Vinod Kumar S/o Balindra Prasad Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dev Suryakund Talav Post Dev Police Station Dev, District Aurngabad, Bihar........ (Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Aurangabad, Bihar. 2 - Balindra Prasad S/o Baidnath Prasad R/o Village Dev Suryakund Talav Post Dev Police Station Dev District Aurangabad, Bihar....... (Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Aurangabad, Bihar. 3 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Through Branch Manager Branch Office Opposite Bhadouriya Building Court Road Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh........ (Insurer), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Pravin Tulsiyan, Advocate For Non-Appellants : Mr. Qumrul Aziz, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 27/06/2025 1. Notice sent to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is reported to be awaited. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2019 which is an application for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing of the appeal. 3. On due consideration of the submissions of counsel for the appellants as also, the pleadings made in the application, I.A. No. 01/2019 is allowed. Delay of 28 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. 4. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while passing the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3. As the Non-Applicant No. 3 is represented by a counsel, this case may be heard finally at motion stage. 6. Submission of counsel for the appellants is not opposed by the counsel for the Respondent No. 3 with regard to the liability to satisfy the 3 amount of compensation is upon the Respondents No. 3/Insurance Company. 7. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the respective parties, appeal is taken up for final hearing. With the consent of parties, case is heard finally. 8. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 116/2018. 9. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 31.05.2018 at about 11:05 A.M., when the applicant namely, Jagat Sahu (since deceased) was going towards Village Nagarnar from Village Chokawada in N.H. 63 walking, at that time, the offending car i.e. Bolero bearing registration no. BR 26 G 0867 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Jagat Sahu from behind and caused accident. Immediately thereafter, he was taken to hospital, but on his way to hospital, he died. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was lodged against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 86/2018, P.S. Nagarnar, District - Baster for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 10.The claimants in the claim application have pleaded that the deceased Jagat Sahu was aged about 40 years, was working as Mason in Ispat Project and was earning Rs. 700/- per day. The applicants/claimants are mother, children and parents of the deceased, have lost their bread-winner in the said accident and claimed compensation of Rs. 4 43,72,000/- from the non-applicants before the learned Claims Tribunal. 11.The Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 submitted reply denying the pleadings of the claim application. It was pleaded that the deceased was standing on the opposite side of the road and when he saw the approaching offending car, he himself jumped on the side of the said car, due to which, the accident occurred. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3 and the Non- Applicant No. 1 was also possessing valid and effective driving license, therefore, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. 12.The Non-Applicant No. 3 submitted reply pleading that the Non- Applicant No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle with utmost care and it was the deceased who came infront of the car and met with accident. On the date of accident, Non-Applicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and effective driving license, there was no permit as such, the vehicle was driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, Non- Applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 13. The learned Claim Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence held that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Non-Applicant No. 1. Deceased suffered several injuries and succumbed to injuries. Taking note of the age mentioned in the documents computed and awarded Rs. 11,50,000/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants which has been challenged in the present appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement. 5 14.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation while assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month only, treating him to be an Unskilled Labourer. He also submits that on the date of accident, the deceased was working as Mason. The claimants have examined witness Sugad (AW-3) to prove the nature of occupation and income as pleaded. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation under other conventional heads. The amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium have not been awarded to all the claimants who are widow, children and parents of the deceased. 15.On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposing the submission of counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 16.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 17.Date of accident i.e. 31.05.2018 and the death of Jagat Sahu due to the motor accidental injuries is not in dispute. The claimants in the claim application have pleaded that the deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs. 700 per day. However, the witness Smt. Kunti Devi Sahu (AW-1) who is the widow of the deceased in her evidence have stated that her husband was doing the work of Labourer. In view of the specific evidence of Smt. Kunti Devi Sahu (AW-1), the learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of Sugad (AW-3) who is 6 stated to be a co-worker. Considering the evidence of witness Smt. Kunti Devi Sahu (AW-1), in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in accepting the evidence of Smt. Kunti Devi Sahu (AW-1) and treating the deceased to be a Labourer. 18.The learned Claims Tribunal in absence of any evidence has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6000/- per month on notional basis. The reason assigned by the Claims Tribunal for assessing income of deceased on notional basis appears to be justified, which does not call for interference. However, the notional income so fixed by the Claims Tribunal appears to be on lower side. It is well settled that where claimants failed to produce documentary evidence to prove income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal should determine his income on the basis of the wage structure prevailing in the area, price index, cost of living or can take help of the wage rate as notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In case at hand, the Claims Tribunal, on guess work assessed income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month but did not resort to circulars/notifications issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notifying wage rate for skilled, unskilled and high skilled workers and therefore, fixation of income of deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month is not proper. 19.As there is no suggestive material to assess the wage rate prevailing within the area in which the deceased was residing, I find it appropriate to take the help of the minimum-wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. According to the notification issued and effective on the date of accident i.e. 31.05.2018, the minimum-wages fixed for Unskilled Labourer was Rs. 8,100/- and 7 therefore, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 8,100/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 20.The learned Claims Tribunal has correctly added 25% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects, applied deduction of 1/5th and multiplier of 15 which are in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121. 21.The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- each under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate and awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of spousal consortium to the Appellant No. 1. The amount awarded under the aforementioned heads is in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), however, in the latter decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC, Hon’ble Supreme Court has further explained the types of consortium and held that 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 of the deceased and Appellants/Claimants No. 6 & 7 are parents of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental and filial consortium (total Rs. 2,40,000/-). It is ordered accordingly. 8 22. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 23. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,100/-. Upon adding 25% towards future prospects, total compensation comes to Rs.10,125/- (8,100 + 2025) and annual income comes to Rs.1,21,500/- (10,125 x 12). After deducting 1/5th of the annual income towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.97,200/- (1,21,500 – 24,300). By applying multiplier of 15, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,58,000/- (97,200 x 15). Besides this, Appellant No. 1 is entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, Appellants No. 2 to 5 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards parental consortium and Appellants No. 6 & 7 are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium. Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 24. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.17,28,000/- [14,58,000 (loss of dependency) + 40,000 (loss of spousal consortium) + 1,60,000 (loss of parental consortium) + 80,000 (loss of filial consortium) + 15,000 (funeral expenses) + 15,000 (loss of estate)]. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 9 25. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 7 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the award shall remain intact. 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 27. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey