1 2025:CGHC:28717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1453 of 2018 1 - Sukwariya Bai widow of Late Indrapal Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Bodar Parsa, Bahripara, Police Station Patna, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Neela Sonwani S/o Late Indrapal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bodar Parsa, Bahripara, Police Station Patna, District Korea, Chhattisgarh 3 - Nageena S/o Late Indrapal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bodar Parsa, Bahripara, Police Station Patna, District Korea, Chhattisgarh 4 - Santosh Kumar S/o Late Indrapal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bodar Parsa, Bahripara, Police Station Patna, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ashok Kumar S/o Late Indrapal Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Bodar Parsa, Bahripara, Police Station Patna, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Heeraman Das S/o Late Tapeshwar Aged About 78 Years R/o Village Bodar Parsa, Bahripara, Police Station Patna, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited, Rahul Complex, First Floor, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..............Insurer Of Truck No. C.G. 15 Ac, 3106. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.06.30 19:03:52 +0530 2 2 - Suresh Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Ram Sai Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Narayanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh..........Driver Of Truck No. C.G. 15 Ac, 3106. 3 - Lalan Ram S/o Shri Ramkumar Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Nakna, Police Station- Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. .............Owner Of Truck No. C. G. 15 Ac, 3106. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 27.06.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 31.07.2018 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.27/2017 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 06.06.2016, Indrapal along with his brother-in-law Vijaykant was going towards Devnagar Sivariya Baba, at that relevant time, one Truck bearing registration No.CG-15/AC/3106 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed the motorcycle of Vijaykant, due to which, both of them fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Indrapal was taken to the 3 Narayana Hospital, Raipur, where he was succumbed to the injuries during treatment. 3. The claimants have filed a claim petition claiming Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation under various heads pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. 4. The Insurance Company filed its written statement in which it has denied the contents of the petition and further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, as such there was violation of breach of policy conditions. It has been further pleaded that there was no registration certificate, permit and fitness of the offending vehicle, as such, Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 5. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their written statements before the Claims Tribunal and denied the fact of accident. They have pleaded that driver, owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-15/CD/3836 has not been made as party respondents, as such there was non-joinder of necessary party and hence, they are not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged above 60 years on the date of 4 accident and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. While adding 10% towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 9, awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,950/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.70,000/- towards other conventional heads, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.4,70,950/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in awarding meagre amount towards future prospects and loss of consortium. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licnece, fitness and permit, as such, Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of 5 compensation. He further submits that after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has passed just compensation to the claimants, which needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.9,000/- per month by the work of Mason, but has not produced any evidence with respect to place of work of deceased or any documentary evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove income as pleaded in their claim application, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, income of deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. The date of accident was 06.06.2016, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to hold engagement of deceased in labour work and his income to be assessed to Rs.6,107/- per month. 11. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased aged above 60 years of age, there is no conclusive proof with regard to the age. 6 12. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2016, and the Tribunal has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum, which is on the lower side. Even if it is to be treated that the deceased was working as a Labour, then also looking to the price index and the wages prevailing at that relevant time, the monthly income of the deceased would be reckon to Rs.6,107/- per month i.e. Rs.73,284/- per annum. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of more than 60 years of age without fixed income, 10% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.80,612/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.60,459/-. After applying the multiplier of 9, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.5,44,131/-. 13. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the 7 law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% increase in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 14. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.6,107/- per month Rs.73,284/- per annum 2. 10% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 73,284 + 7328 = Rs.80,612/- 3. 1/4th of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 80,612 / 4 = Rs.20,153/- Rs.60,459/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 15 applied 60,459 x 9 Rs.5,44,131/- 5. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the four claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.1,92,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every Rs.18,000/- 8 three years Total Compensation Awarded Rs.7,72,131/- 15. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.7,72,131/-. After deducting Rs.4,70,950/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.3,01,181/-. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein- above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.3,01,181/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 17. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 18. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh