1 2025:CGHC:34548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1593 of 2019 1 - Laxmin Bai Bareth W/o Late Sandeep Bareth Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Jetha, P.S.- Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, Presently Residing At Village Karmanda, P.S.- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Neha Bareth D/o Late Sandeep Bareth Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Laxmin Bai Bareth, Minor Through Thier Guardian Father Ramasata Kaivartya (Res. No.1), R/o Village Limtari P.O. Purgaon, P.S. Bilaigarh, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sanjana Bareth D/o Late Sandeep Bareth Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Laxmin Bai Bareth, Minor Through Thier Guardian Father Ramasata Kaivartya (Res. No.1), R/o Village Limtari P.O. Purgaon, P.S. Bilaigarh, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Soniya Bareth D/o Late Sandeep Bareth Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Laxmin Bai Bareth, Minor Through Thier Guardian Father Ramasata Kaivartya (Res. No.1), R/o Village Limtari P.O. Purgaon, P.S. Bilaigarh, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kunal Bareth S/o Late Sandeep Bareth Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Laxmin Bai Bareth, Minor Through Thier Guardian Father Ramasata Kaivartya (Res. No.1), R/o Village Limtari P.O. Purgaon, P.S. Bilaigarh, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 6 - Ganga Bai W/o Late Pitambar Bareth Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Limtari P.O. Purgaon, P.S. Bilaigarh, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh................ (Claimants), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Vikas Singh Sidar S/o Babu Lal Sidar Aged About 24 Years R/o Suvadera, P.S. And Tahsil Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Building No. 9/1, 2nd Floor, Behind Khandelwal Mothors At Joining Tejar Ice Land Mall, M.G. Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh..........(Non-Applicants), District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 21/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in MAC No. 10/2019 vide its award dated 29.06.2019. 2. Motor-accidental death of Sandeep Bareth, involvement of the offending vehicle owned by the Respondent No. 1, insured by Respondent No. 2/Non-Applicant No. 2 and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 2/Insurance Company is not in dispute, hence, this Court is not adverting to the facts as pleaded in the claim application, reply of non-applicants and discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. However, this Court is only considering the grounds raised by counsel for the appellant 3 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and submission of the counsel for the respective parties in this regard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased on the date of accident was aged about 28 years as held by the learned Claims Tribunal in para 22 of the impugned award, however, his income is assessed as Rs. 4,000/- per month, overlooking the date of accident i.e. 25.08.2018. He contended that even if the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in claim application, Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed his income on notional basis keeping in mind the wage structure prevailing in the area of which, deceased was resident. He also contended that sufficient amount of compensation is not awarded under other conventional heads. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the amount of compensation computed and awarded to the claimants/appellants is just and proper in the facts of case and does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 6. Undisputedly, date of accident is 25.08.2018 and age of the deceased 28 years. Though the claimants have pleaded in the claim application, occupation of the deceased as Mason and earning Rs. 12,000/- but, expect the pleadings made in the claim application and self-serving statements of the claimants/applicants, no admissible piece of evidence is brought on record and therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly taken recourse to assess income of the deceased on 4 notional basis considering his occupation as Unskilled Labourer. However, the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- only. 7. In the facts of the case, where the claimants/applicants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of the deceased, Claims/Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased treating him to be Unskilled Labourer, could have taken into consideration notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority for Unskilled Labouer of ‘C’ Zone area for the period from 01.04.2018 till 30.09.2018 was Rs. 8,140/- per month and therefore, I find it appropriate to determine, income of the deceased as Rs. 8,140/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards future prospects. As per 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, where the deceased was less than 40 years of age and not in permanent employment, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Therefore, I find it appropriate to add 40% of the assessed income towards future prospect for the purpose of computing amount of compensation. 9. Learned Claims deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 17, which is to the tune of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 which does not call for any interference. 5 10.Claims Tribunal further awarded meagre amount of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the Claimants No. 2 to 5 and Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the Claimant No. 6 towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 20,000/- to the Appellant/Claimant No. 1 towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs. 50,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Compensation under other conventional heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium is not properly awarded. It has been specified and quantified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and it is held that the widow/widower will be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Compensation towards loss of consortium is further clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the types of consortium as spousal consortium to widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellant No. 1 is widow, Appellants/Claimants No. 2 to 5 are children and Appellant No. 6 is mother, and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium (total Rs. 2,40,000/-) respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 11.As this Court has awarded the compensation under the head of loss of consortium, the Appellants/Claimants will not be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection as it subsumes the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076. 12.Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Pranay Sethi (Supra) has observed that there shall be increase of 10% on the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly. 13. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. S. No. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/Dependency 8140 X 12 = 97,680 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (97,680 X 40% = 39072) (97,680 + 39072 = 1,36,752) (C) Deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses (1,36,752 X 1/4th = 34,188) (1,36,752 – 34,188 = 1,02,564/-) (D) Multiplier of 17 (1,02,564 X 17 = 17,43,588/-) : Rs. 17,43,588/- 2. Funeral Expenses (15,000 + 10% of 15,000) : (+) Rs. 16,500/- 3. Loss of Estate (15,000 + 10% of 15,000) : (+) Rs. 16,500/- 4. Loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium to Claimants/Appellants (40,000 + 10% of 40,000) @ Rs. 44,000/- each (44,000 X 6) : (+) Rs. 264000/- Total Compensation : Rs. 20,40,588/- 7 14. Now, the Appellants/Claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 20,40,588/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 17. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey