1 2025:CGHC:23129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1553 of 2019 1 - Smt. Anusuiya Bai Sahu Wd/o - Late Motiram Sahu Aged About 50 Years 2 - Tejram Sahu S/o - Late Motiram Sahu Aged About 24 Years Both are R/o - Village Siyadehi, Post Aruoud, Police Station Keregaon, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Claimants). --- Appellants. versus 1 - Satteram Netam (Dead, Deleted) Smt. Rekha Netam Wd/o - Late Satteram Netam Aged About 45 Years R/o - Village Bhoyana, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.-06/G.C./1430). 2 - Kaushal Bhoi S/o - Shri Bahadur Bhoi, R/o - Shrinath Colony, Shanti Colony Road, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.-06/G.C./1430) 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, M.B. Trade Centre, Nearby Ghadi Chowk, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Insure Of Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.-06/G.C./1430). 4 - Lokeshwar Sahu D/o - Vishram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o -Village Khartuli, Post Office Potiyadih Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Trolly No. C.G.-05/G/4238). 5 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Sinha Complex, Bathena Chowk, Raipur Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Trolly No. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 C.G.-05/G/4238) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate along with Ms. Devanshi Chakraborty, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Respondents No.4 : Mr. Tridib Bhathacharya, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 11/06/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 07.05.2019 passed in Claim Case No.158/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.6,23,215/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application was filed by the appellants/claimants being the legal representative of the deceased Motiram Sahu stating that on 19.06.2017 at about 7:00 PM, Motiram Sahu was returning from Dhamtari to his native village, Siyadehi. When he reached the vicinity of village Bhoyana, near Maruti Nandan Briksha, he collided with a tractor (bearing registration number CG-06/GC/1430) and a trolley (bearing registration number CG-05/G/4238) that had been parked on the road by Respondent No.1 without any signal lights or warning indicators. As a result of the collision, Motiram Sahu sustained severe injuries and succumbed to 3 those injuries during the course of treatment. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was of 54 years healthy man and was running hotel and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimants were dependent upon the deceased. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- from the respondents under different heads. 3. The Insurance Company along with owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the claim of appellants/claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and after recording the evidence of the respective parties, passed the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation in a fatal accident case. The claimants are widow and child of deceased. In the pleadings, claimants have specifically pleaded that the deceased was running a hotel in the village and earning Rs.9,000/- per month, however, the learned Claims Tribunal without assigning any reason, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per monthly only. Learned Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the deduction of ½ instead of 1/3 in the facts of the case. He further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of compensation under the loss of consortium to the appellant No.2 and hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for respective respondents vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal in its award has recorded categorical finding that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased 4 from hotel by placing cogent and admissible piece of evidence. No documents has been filed or independent witnesses have been examined to prove that the deceased on the date of accident was running hotel. Hence, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased treating him to be a labourer, which cannot be faulted with. They further submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 7. True it is that except the pleadings made in the application and the self serving statement made by the claimants, no other witnesses have been examined to prove that on the date of accident, deceased was running hotel in the village. No documents has been placed on record also. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis. As the occupation and income of the deceased is not proved, the occupation of the deceased can safely be taken as labourer and accordingly, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly taken the occupation of the deceased as labourer. In the case, where occupation and income could not be proved by the claimants/appellants, it is for the Tribunal and the Court to assess the income of the deceased considering his age, cost of living, price index, wage structure prevailing within the area and further may also take help of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the purpose of 5 assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the affected persons. In the case at hand, the income of the deceased could not be proved by the admissible piece of evidence and therefore, I am inclined to assess the income of the deceased based on the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The deceased was resident of village, therefore, taking note of the notification issued by the competent authority on 16.09.2016, the minimum wages fixed for the unskilled labourer is mentioned as Rs.6206/- and accordingly I am inclined to accept the minimum wages as provided and fixed by the competent authority under the Act, 1948 for labourer as Rs.6206/- per month. 8. So far as the second grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellants with respect to application of deduction ½ instead of 1/3 towards personal living expenses of the deceased, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 has crystallized the deduction tobe made considering the number of family members of the deceased. In the case at hand, claimants are widow and children of deceased. In the aforementioned facts of the case, appropriate deduction would 1/3 instead of ½ as applied by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly it is ordered that deduction towards personal living expenses shall be 1/3. 9. There is no dispute with respect to the multiplier of 11 applied by the learned Claims Tribunal as on the date of accident age of the deceased was in between 55 to 60 years. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly added 10% towards loss of future income considering the 6 age of the deceased between 55 to 60 years. Such addition made by the learned Claims Tribunal is in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,17,615/- towards medical expenses and further Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection when the amount of compensation is already awarded under the head of loss consortium. It is settled law that when the compensation is to be awarded under the loss of consortium, then the compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is not to be awarded. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded amount of compensation towards loss of consortium only with respect to the appellant No.1 and had not awarded any amount of compensation with respect to appellant No.2 under the said head. Award of loss of consortium to the children has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and it is held that the children are entitled for loss of parental consortium. Accordingly, appellant No.2 is also entitled for the amount of compensation under the head of loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-. And further the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of estate. 7 12. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 6206x12 = 74,472.00 2. Addition of 10% towards future prospects : 74,472.00 + 7,447.00 = 81,919.00 3. 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses : 81,919.00 – 27,306.00= 54,613.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 11 : 54,613 x 11 = 6,00,743.00 5. For loss of spousal consortium to the appellants (spousal and filial) Rs.40,000/- : 80,000.00 6. For medical expenses : 1,17,615.00 6. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 7. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 Grand Total : 8,28,358.00 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,28,358.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram