1 2025:CGHC:41436 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1641 of 2019 1 - Shanti Sahu W/o Late Umashankar Aged About 22 Years 2 - Fulmat Bai W/o Late Jivanlal Aged About 45 Years 3 - Ku. Ragini D/o Late Umashankar Sahu, Aged About 6 Months, Minor Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Shanti Sahu, All are R/o Village Pithampur Tahsil And Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Vinod Kumar Prasad S/o Late Mahadev Prasad Aged About 37 Years R/o Karariya, Police Station Kotobar (Bihar), At Present Krishna Through C.P. Yadav Dhimarpur District Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh). (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle) 2 - Kaushal Prasad Saini Through His Special Attorney Ashok Kumar Saini S/o Premsingh Aged About 57 Years, R/o Laxmikripa Complex Dhimarpur House 456/1, Ward No.4 Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Regional Manager Office Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle) --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None present though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.18 10:42:41 +0530 2 18/08/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay of 248 days in filing of appeal. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submission made on behalf of appellants. He however, in alternate submits that if this Court considers to condone the delay then it may be ordered that appellants will not be entitled for the interest for delayed period. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in case of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797. 3. Considering the reasons assigned in the application as also the submission of learned counsel for respective parties I find it appropriate to allow the I.A. No.1, and condone the delay in filing of this appeal. Accordingly, the I.A. No.1 is allowed and delay of 248 days in filing of this appeal is condoned. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that appeal is filed by claimants/appellants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, who have lost their sole bread winner, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened jointly and severally upon non-applicants, driver, owner and Insurance Company of offending vehicle. He also pointed out that non-applicant No.3/being insurer is having first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation and it is represented by counsel, therefore, this appeal be heard finally at motion stage. 3 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that he is having no objection if appeal is heard finally. 6. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, I find it appropriate to hear this appeal finally at motion stage. 7. Claimant/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 Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.09.2018 passed in Claim Case No.36/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.4,87,000/- as compensation in a death case. 8. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accident occurred on 27.01.2017, involvement of vehicle Grader Champion bearing number 720-A Modal 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") owned by non-applicant No.2, driven by non- applicant No.1, non-applicant No. 3 being insurer and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation fastened up non-applicant No. 3, is not in dispute. 9. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but 4 only considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation. 10. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that claimants in their claim application have pleaded occupation and income of deceased to be working in the plant and earing Rs.7,000/- per month. He however, admitted that according to the records, claimants could not able to substantiate the pleadings of occupation and income of Rs.7,000/-, however, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the income of deceased taking note of wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place of resident of deceased. He also contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards future prospects, even after recording age of deceased to be 25 years. According to the decision in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have added 40% towards future prospects in the assessed income. He further submits that deduction and multiplier has been correctly applied, however, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under other conventional head according to the settled law. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and submit that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on all the heads for which appellants are entitled for. Impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal is upon appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record, which does not call for any interference. 5 12. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 13. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to less assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, claimants have pleaded that deceased was employed in P.I.L Plant Champa and earning Rs.7,000/- per month, however, there is no clinching and admissible evidence to prove the said pleadings. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has taken correct step of assessing income of the deceased on notional basis, however, erred in assessing his income as Rs.3,000/- per month only, overlooking the date of accident as 27.01.2017. For assessing income of the deceased on notional basis, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the 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. 14. 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 of which 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. As per notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wages for the period from 01.10.2016 to 31.03.2017 for unskilled 6 laboure of C-zone area is fixed as Rs.6,206/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6,206/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 15. 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 22 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. 16. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellants that learned learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper and suitable compensation under other conventional head according to the settled law is concerned, perusal of impugned would show that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium to appellant No.1, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection to appellant No.2 and 3 respectively and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. 17. The award under other conventional heads is specified and quantified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 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 entitled for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported 7 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, mother, and daughter of deceased, therefore, appellants No.1 being the wife, appellant No.2 being mother and appellant No.3 being daughter of deceased are entitled for spousal, filial and parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each respectively. It is ordered accordingly. Because loss of love and affection subsumes compensation of loss of consortium and hence, the claimants will not be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection accordingly. It is set-aside. 19. 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. There is no dispute with respect to application of deduction of 1/3 and multiplier of 18 by learned Claims Tribunal. 20. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 6,206 x 12 = 74,472.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 74,472.00 + 29,788 = 1,04,260.00 3. 1/3 deduction towards personal : 1,04,260.00 – 34,753.00 = 69,507.00 8 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 : 69,507 x 18 = 12,51,126.00 5. For loss of spousal, filial and parental consortium to the appellant No.1 to 3 of Rs.44,000/- each. : 1,32,000.00 6. For funeral expenses : 16,500.00 7. For loss of estate : 16,500.00 Grand Total : 14,16,126.00 21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,16,126.00. Any amount paid to the appellant 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. 22. It is further directed that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lakkamma (supra), the appellants will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is of 248 days. 23. 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