1 / 6 2025:CGHC:33723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 3 of 2021 1. Smt. Rupa Bai W/o Late Mahesh Chandrakar Aged About 30 Year 2. Humesh S/o Late Mahesh Chandrakar Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rupa Bai 3. Ku. Annu D/o Late Mahesh Chandrakar Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rupa Bai 4. Smt. Kasturi Bai W/o Sitaram Chandrakar Aged About 60 Years 5. Sitaram Chandrakar S/o Late Kalanath Chandrakar Aged About 65 Years 6. Leeladhar S/o Sitaram Chandrakar Aged About 20 Years 7. Vinod Chandrakar S/o Sitaram Chandrakar Aged About 18 Years All are R/o Village- Khaira Post And Thana Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants versus 1. Satyanarayan Aavade S/o Sukhdev Aavade Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 12 Pitiyajhar, Thana And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck C.G. No. 06/B-9187) 2. Deelip Singh S/o Late Keshar Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Station Road, Thana And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck C.G. No. 06/B-9187 3. Branch Manager The National Insurane Company Limited, Mobin Mahal Kachehari Chowk Raipur, Distrit Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck C.G. No. 06/B/9187) ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. Though served. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 17/07/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 01.02.2020 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. H-16/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 7,78,750/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 26.11.2016 at 6:30 pm in the evening, Mahesh Chandrakar was coming from Imlibhata to Mahasamund, when he reached near Railway crossing, near Rasoi Restaurant, a truck bearing number CG06 B 9187 (hereinafter referred to as “offending truck”) driven by non-applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently dashed Mahesh Chandrakar due to which he came under the truck. In the accident, he suffered fatal injuries over his person and died on spot. Accident was reported to concerned police station, based on which Crime No. 612/2016 was registered for alleged offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 3. Applicants-claimants, widow, children, parents and brothers of deceased- Mahesh Chandrakar, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 33,00,000/- pleading therein that deceased on the date of accident was a healthy person aged about 42 years. He was doing the work of Carpenter and earning ₹ 500 per day. 4. Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending truck filed their reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was driving the truck carefully and no accident was caused from the 3 / 6 offending truck. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, offending truck was insured by non-applicant No. 3, thus, the liability, if any, would be of non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident ,the offending truck was being plied in breach of policy conditions, there was no valid fitness certificate, permit of offending truck and the driver of offending truck was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence. It was also stated that deceased consumed liquor and riding his cycle due to which he fell on road and suffered injuries. Thus, in such a situation, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, if awarded. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Mahesh Chandrakar died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck driven by non- applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Deceased riding his bicycle under influence of liquor was also not found proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 7,78.750/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened the liability upon non- applicants therein, jointly and severally to satisfy the award. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation by assessing income of deceased aged about 42 years, as ₹ 4500 per month only, overlooking the income and occupation of the deceased of Carpenter as pleaded in the claim application. He next contended that the amount of compensation under other conventional head is also much on lower side. There are seven claimants, 4 / 6 however, Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium to claimant No. 1 only ie., widow of the deceased. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. In absence of prove of income, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income on notional basis. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with regard to assessment of income of deceased as ₹ 4,500 per month on the date of accident is concerned, the occupation of deceased is pleaded to be working as Carpenter, however, admittedly, there is no clinching and admissible piece of evidence available in record to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal justified in taking recourse to assess income of deceased on notional basis, however, fell into error in not taking into consideration factors like age of deceased, date of accident, cost of living, price index and wages prevailing on the date of accident ie.,of the year 2016, in the area of which deceased was resident and has not considered minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer. As the appellants-claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased, I find it appropriate to hold that the occupation of deceased to be one of the unskilled labourer. 11. As there is no material to suggest the wages prevailing at the place where the deceased was resident of, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing within the State of Chhattisgarh. Deceased was resident of village Khaira District 5 / 6 Mahasamund, and as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.10.2016 till 31.03.2017 for unskilled labourer for C-Zone area is ₹ 6,206/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of deceased on the date of accident is assessed as ₹ 6,206. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Further perusal of award would show that the Claims Tribunal has correctly added 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects as the deceased was between 40 to 50 years and further awarded ₹ 15,000 towards loss of estate, ₹ 15,000 towards funeral expenses and ₹ 40,000 has been awarded towards loss of consortium to appellant No. 1, which are to the tune of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Tribunal has applied deduction of 1/4 and multiplier of 14 which in the facts of the case are also correctly applied and are in the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding compensation towards loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2 and 3, children and loss of filial consortium to appellants No. 4 & 5, parents of deceased. 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, has held that apart from awarding loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, children and parents of the deceased will also be entitled for loss of consortium under the head of loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium respectively. In the case at hand, appellants No. 2 & 3 are children and appellants No. 4 & 5 are parents, therefore, they are also be entitled for loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 6 / 6 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 74,472/- (₹ 6206x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 74,472 + 25% of ₹ 74,472 = ₹ 93,090) • Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 93,090 x 1/4= ₹ 23,273); ₹ 93,090 - ₹ 23,273 = ₹ 69,817/- • Multiplier of 14 ₹ 69,817 x 14 = ₹ 9,77,438/- ₹ 9,77,438/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 ₹ 40,000/- Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 & 3; and Loss of Filial Consortium to Appellants No. 4 & 5 (₹ 40,000 each) ₹ 1,60,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 15,000/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 12,07,438/- 14. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 12,07,438/- instead of ₹ 7,78,750/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced 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. Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. 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