1 / 7 2025:CGHC:24189 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1589 of 2019 1. Smt. Meena W/o Shiv Prasad Aged About 47 Years 2. Ramesh S/o Shiv Prasad Aged About 22 Years Both are R/o Village Jantipara Pipar Bahra Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Laxmin Babu S/o Bajilal Aged About 30 Years R/o Jantipara Pipar Bahra, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Offending Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.-16 E-1920) 2. Mahendra Pratap Singh S/o Ram Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Jantipara Pipar Bahra Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Offending Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 16 E-1920) 3. Iffico Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Shop No. 205, 2nd Floor M.M. Silver Plaza Nearby Niyam Mining Office Mahavir Nagar Ring Road No. 01 Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Offending Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.-16 E-1920) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/06/2025 1. Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 compensation, challenging the award dated 04.05.2019 passed by Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 59/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 5,12,000/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 29.07.2017 at about 4:00 p.m., Shivprasad Gond was sitting on tractor no. CG-16-E-1920 and going to village Shivpur, when the tractor reached near village Shivpur Thihaipara, Kachchi Road, non-applicant no. 2 drove the offending tractor rashly and negligently due to which it got overturned, Shivprasad Gond came under the tractor. In the accident, Shivprasad Gond suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Report of the accident was lodged in police station Khadgawa against non-applicant No. 2/ driver based on which crime no. 122/2017 was registered for alleged offence under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of the Act of 1988. 3. Appellants, who are widow and the child of deceased Shivprasad Gond, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 19,90,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 50 years of age, was an able bodied person. At the time of the accident deceased was doing the work of Mason, was earning ₹ 12,000/- per month to support himself and his family. 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -owner and driver of the offending tractor submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that applicants in their claim application have exaggerated the income of the deceased. The alleged accident was not caused by the offending tractor driven by non-applicant No. 2, rather Shivprasad God 3 / 7 died as a result of an accident with some other vehicle. It was further pleaded that offending tractor was insured with non-applicant no. 3, thus, non-applicant no. 3 is liable to pay the compensation amount, if any. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company did not file its reply within the prescribed time limit and as the reply submitted with considerable delay at the subsequent stage was not accepted by the Tribunal. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Shivprasad Gond died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending tractor owned by non-applicant No. 1 and driven by non-applicant No. 2. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 5,12,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 8% 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 ₹ 4,500/- per month only overlooking the occupation of deceased as Mason. He submits that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly applied deduction of 1/2. 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 appellant No. 2. 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. 4 / 7 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 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-5, is 50 years. To prove the nature of occupation and income, claimants have examined Smt. Meena, widow of deceased, as AW- 1. No other independent witnesses have been examined to prove nature of occupation and income, no documentary evidence has been produced in this regard. Claimants in their claim application have pleaded income of deceased as ₹ 12,000/- per month. Date of accident is 29.07.2017. 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 may 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. 5 / 7 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, income of deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal as ₹ 4,500/- per month is much less than what is fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, I find it 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 during the period of accident ie., between 2016-2017 for unskilled labourer ie., ₹ 7,800/- per month. Therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as ₹ 7,800/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Sofar as the second ground raised with respect to award of compensation on other conventional heads and application of deduction of 1/2 is concerned, perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 70,000/- consolidated amount towards love and affection, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. Award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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, appellant no. 1 is widow spouse of deceased and appellant no. 2 is child and therefore they are also entitled for ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium and loss of parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly. Claims Tribunal has erroneously applied deduction of 1/2 contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC. Claimants are widow and son of deceased, there are two claimants, however, even if the spouse is one of the claimants then also the appropriate deduction would be 1/3 in view of decision of Sarla Verma (supra). Therefore, finding of Claims Tribunal with regard to application of deduction of 1/2 is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside. There shall be deduction 6 / 7 of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses. Tribunal has righlty applied multiplier of 13 which is in consonance with the decision of Sarla Verma (supra). And the addition of 25% towards loss of future prospects is also correct 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. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. 14. The monthly income of deceased is taken as ₹ 7,800/- ie., yearly income as ₹ 93,600/-. Upon adding 25% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ ₹ 1,17,000/- . After deducting 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 78,000/-. Upon applying multiplier of 13, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 10,14,000/-. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for compensation of ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1, ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium to appellant No. 2, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 93,600/- B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 93,600 x 25% = ₹ 23,400) ₹ 93,600 + ₹ 23,400= ₹ 1,17,000/- C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,17,000 x 1/3= ₹ 39,000); ₹ 1,17,000 - ₹ 39,000 = ₹ 78,000/- D) Multiplier of 13 ₹ 78,000 x 13 = ₹ 10,14,000/- ₹ 10,14,000/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 ₹ 40,000/- Loss of Parental Consortium to Appellant No. 2 ₹ 40,000/- 7 / 7 Loss of estate ₹ 15,000/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 11,24,000/- 15. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 11,24,000/- instead of ₹ 5,12,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants 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