1 2025:CGHC:36541 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1638 of 2019 1 - Dilbai Binjhawar Wd/o Late Santosh Binjhawar Aged About 32 Years 2 - Pratima Binjhawar D/o Late Santosh Binjhawar Aged About 16 Years 3 - Chhatram Binjhawar S/o Late Santosh Binjhawar Aged About 12 Years 4 - Satnarayan Binjhawar S/o Late Santosh Binjhawar Aged About 8 Years No.1 to 4 are Minors Through : Their Natural Mother Namely Dilbai Binjhawar Wd/o Late Santosh Binjhawar, Aged About 32 Years, 5 - Dauram Binjhawar S/o Jugul Binjhawar Aged About 62 Years All are by Caste Binjhawar, R/o Village Khari, Police Chowki Pantora, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Krishana Kumar Yadav S/o Sumeru Yadav Aged About 41 Years By Caste Yadav, R/o Village Katsira, Police Chowki Hardi, Police Station Kusmunda District Korba Chhattisgarh.... 2 - Ramsingh Kanwar S/o Manroop Singh Kanwar Aged About 50 Years By Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Katsira, Police Chowki Hardi, Police Station Kusmunda District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Maigma H. D. I. General Insurance Company Limited 1st Floor, Over The H. D. F. C. Bank, Sharda Vihar Colony Power House Road Korba, Police Station And Tahsil District Korba Chhattisgarh... ….Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rupesh Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : None present though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.28 11:31:17 +0530 2 28/07/2025 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, Janjgir-Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 18.04.2019 passed in Claim Case No.75/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.11,50,000/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.68,00,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Santosh Binjhwar, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 04.08.2018 at about 4.00 while he was going to his house after closing his shop and reached near the house of Nandlal at that time non-applicant No.1 while driving the offending tractor bearing No.C.G.-12/AN-6532 in a rash and negligent manner dashed Santosh Binjhwar and caused accident, due to which he suffered fatal injuries on his head, leg and eye and succumbed to those injuries. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 35 years old able bodied person, working as motor mechanic and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The claimants were dependent upon him and due to his untimely death they are facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed reply to the application denying the averments made therein. The happening of accident from the offending vehicle was denied. It was pleaded that claim application was filed on false and fabricated grounds. Non-applicant No.1 was 3 having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle, it was duly insured with non-applicant No.3 and was being plied following the conditions of insurance policy. 4. Non-applicant No.3 filed its reply resisting the claim of the claimants. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license. The offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- and fastened liability upon non-applicants/ respondents jointly and severally to indemnify the insured. 6. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation assessing income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month only recording that claimants failed to prove occupation and income of the deceased, however, the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken note of the minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident for computing the income of the deceased. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation under the head of future prospects as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He lastly contended that amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is not awarded to the claimants No.2 to 5, who are children and father of deceased and prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 4 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that the amount of amount of compensation is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the record of claim case. 9. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellants with regard to assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, though there is pleading in the claim application that deceased was working as Motor Cycle Mechanic and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. However, no clinching evidence was brought on record to prove income of the deceased. In absence of specific proof and evidence with respect to the income of deceased, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the deceased on notional basis, however, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month only as income of the deceased overlooking the date of accident was 04.08.2018. For assessing income of the deceased on notional basis, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing at the place where deceased was resident of. The learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 10. In the case at hand, there is no suggesting piece of evidence to prove the wages given on the date of accident at the place where the 5 deceased was resident of. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased treating him to be labourer taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for that period. The minimum wages fixed by the authority for the period from 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018 as Rs.8,100/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8,100/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 11. Perusal of the award would show that learned Claims Tribunal failed to add any amount towards future prospects in the assessed income of the deceased. The deceased on the date of accident was 35 years of age as mentioned in the postmortem report, therefore, as per decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction of 1/4 towards personal living expenses and the application of multiplier of 16 by the learned Claims Tribunal is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 13. Perusal of the award would show that learned Claims Tribunal apart from the compensation towards loss of dependency has awarded consolidated amount of Rs.70,000/-. The award under other conventional heads is specified and quantified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, under the head loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium in a death case. Accordingly, the claimants are 6 entitled for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 14. The 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 has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. The claimants/appellants are wife, children, and father of the deceased, therefore, appellants No.1 being the wife, appellant No.2 to 4 being children and appellant No.5 being father of deceased Santosh are entitled for spousal, parental and filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that there shall be increase of 10% on the amount of compensation awarded under the other conventional heads after every three years and therefore, the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly. 16. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 8,100 x 12 = 97,200.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 97,200.00 + 38,880.00 = 1,36,080.00 3. 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,36,080.00 – 34,020.00= 1,02,060.00 7 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 16 : 1,02,060 x 16 = 16,32,960.00 5. For loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium to the appellants No.1 to 5 Rs.44,000/- each (44,000 x 5) : 2,20,000.00 6. For funeral expenses : 16,500.00 7. For loss of estate : 16,500.00 Grand Total : 18,85,960.00 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,85,960.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 18. 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