-1- 2025:CGHC:41810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1027 of 2022 1 - Smt Meena Bai W/o Late Dhelaram Patil Aged About 35 Years 2 - Prem Patil S/o Late Dhelaram Patil Aged About 18 Years 3 - Ku. Paremin Patil D/o Late Dhelaram Patil Aged About 12 Years 4 - Ku. Pratibha Patil D/o Late Dhelaram Patil Aged About 9 Years Appellants No. 3 & 4 are Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Meena Bai All R/o Village Tarpondi, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present Resident Of Mannadol, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Vinod Chaturvedi S/o Pusau Chaturvedi Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village Kirta, Nawagarh, Police Station Nawagarh, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Motorcycle No. C. G.-10-A U-6825) 2 - Sachin Rajak S/o Lalji Rajak Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Ward No. 47, Chatterjee Gali New Sarkanda, P. S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Motorcycle No. C. G.-10- A U-6825) 3 - I. C. I. C. I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office, Ground Floor, Commercial Building, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Motorcycle No. C. G.-10-A U-6825) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.23 10:53:17 +0530 -2- __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3. : Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shekhar Rao Ameen, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 19/08/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Eight Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, CG. vide award dated 24.06.2022 passed by in Claim Case No.40 of 2021. 2. As in this appeal claimants are seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in a death case, death of Late Dhelaram Patil in motor accident, involvement of motorcycle driven by non-applicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3 is not in dispute, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicants is also not in dispute, this Court is not dealing with facts as pleaded in claim application, reply to claim application and the facts as adverted by Claims Tribunal in its award disclosing facts of accidents. However, this Court is considering the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation. -3- 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.8960/- per month overlooking the date of accident, pleadings made in claim application that deceased on the date of accident was working as Mason and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. 4. Learned counsel for respective respondents oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that claimants failed to prove the occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in claim application by admissible evidence, hence, learned Claims Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased notionally considering occupation of deceased to be ‘unskilled labourer’. Hence, it does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of claim case. 6. Claimants in their claim application have pleaded age of deceased as 33 years, his occupation to be Mason and income as Rs.12,000/- per month. However, to prove pleadings made in application, claimant No.1 is examined as AW1 (widow of deceased), Ravi Navrange as AW2. Ravi Navrange is the witness to accident. This witness has though stated that at the time of accident deceased was carrying tools used by Mason in civil construction, however, in cross-examination he could not able to narrate the number and colour of motorcycle and also date and time of accident. 7. In the aforementioned facts of case and nature of evidence of AW2 in -4- the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal justified in not accepting evidence of AW2. As there was no admissible evidence brought on record by claimants to prove occupation and income of deceased. Learned Claims Tribunal justified in proceeding further to assess income of deceased treating him to be ‘unskilled labourer’. However, Claims Tribunal fell into error in not considering the minimum wages fixed by competent authority for B-Zone area of which deceased is stated to be working on the date of accident. According to Notification issued for period from 01.10.2020 to 31.03.2021 minimum wages for ‘unskilled labour’ for B-Zone area including DA was Rs.9,220/- and therefore I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as Rs.9220/- per month. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal in absence of any document/certificate to prove age of deceased, has rightly assessed his age be 41 years taking note of the postmortem report Ex.P-4 where age of deceased is mentioned as 41 years. 9. No other ground is raised by learned counsel for appellants before this Court. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- each to claimants No. 1 to 4 towards ‘loss of consortium’. 11. In the case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that loss of compensation awarded under other conventional heads like -5- loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium is to be increased by 10% in every three years and therefore in the opinion of this Court amount of compensation under other conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% . It is ordered accordingly. 12. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re- compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency wages Rs.9220 p.m x 12 = 110640 p.a. (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 25% (110640 x 25% =27660) 110640 + 27660 = 138300 (C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses ( 138300 x 1/4 =34575) 138300 - 34575 = 103725 (D) Multiplier of 14 103725 x 14 = 14,52,150 : Rs. 14,52,150 2. Funeral Expenses 15000 x 10 % =1500 15000 + 1500 = 16500 : (+) Rs. 16,500 3. Loss of Estate 15000 x 10 % =1500 15000 + 1500 = 16500 : (+) Rs. 16,500 4. Loss of Consortium to claimants No. 1 to 4 of Rs.44,000/- each (40000 + 10% = 44000) ( 44000 x 4 = 1,76,000/-) : (+) Rs. 1,76,000 Total compensation : Rs. 16,61,150 -6- 13. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.16,61,150/- instead of Rs.16,01200/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 14. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. /- Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen