1 2025:CGHC:38736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 630 of 2021 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Jail Road Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Through Incharge, T.P. Hub, 1st Floor, Lic Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Gajendra Kumar Nag S/o Jaganu Ram Nag Aged About 45 Years 2 - Kunal Nag S/o Shri Gajendra Kumar Nag Aged About 16 Years 3 - Kirtan Nag S/o Gajendra Kumar Nag Aged About 12 Years No.2 and 3 are Minors and represented Through Their Father And Natural Guardian Shri Gajendra Kumar Nag, S/o Jagnuram Nag, All are R/o Village Kodagaon, Police Station And Tehsil Antagarh, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kirtan Kumar S/o Shri Bir Singh Uike Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Lamkanhar, P.S. And Tehsil Antagarh, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Driver), 5 - Mahadev Prasad S/o Shri Krishna Prasad Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Nayapara Main Road, Antagarh, P.S. And Tehsil Antagarh District Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner) --- Respondents MAC No. 759 of 2021 1 - Gajendra Kumar Nag S/o Jaganu Ram Nag Aged About 43 Years 2 - Kunal Nag S/o Shri Gajendra Kumar Nag Aged About 14 Years 3 - Kirtan Nag S/o Gajendra Kumar Nag Aged About 12 Years No.2 and 3 are Minors and represented Through Their Father And Natural Guardian Shri Gajendra Kumar Nag, S/o Jagnuram Nag, All are R/o Village Kodagaon, Police Station And Tehsil Antagarh, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.01 11:09:48 +0530 2 Versus 1 - Kirtan Kumar S/o Bir Singh Uike Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Laamkanhar Police Station And Tahsil Antagarh, District North Bastar Knaker Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mahadev Prasad S/o Krishan Prasad Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Navapara Main Road, Antagarh, Police Station And Tahsil Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Jail Road, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant (in MAC No.630 of 2021) and respondent No.3 in MAC No.759 of 2021) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ratan Pusty, Advocate For Appellant (in MAC No.759 of 2021) and Respondent No.1 to 3 (in MAC No.630 of 2019 : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.4 & 5 (in MAC No. 630 of 2021) : Mr. Virendra Vaishnav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 05/08/2025 1. MAC No.630 of 2021 is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the finding of negligence of driver of insured vehicle as also quantum of compensation, whereas MAC No.759 of 2021 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Case No.20/2019. As both the appeals are arising out of the same award, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s. 166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants seeking total compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- under different heads on account of 3 death of Rakhi Nag and injuries suffered by Kunal Nag in the road accident. It was pleaded that on 18/10/2017, Gajendra Kumar Nag, along with his wife, Rakhi Nag, and their two children namely Kunal and Kirtan Nag, were returning from Raipur to their residence at Village Kodagaav, Antagarh in their new purchased Maruti Ciaz car, driven carefully and at a slow speed by Applicant No. 1. At about 4:00 a.m., when they reached near Village Lamakanhar, a truck bearing registration No.CG-08-AB-5577 was negligently parked on the road without any warning indicators, reflectors or signals. Due to negligent parking of the truck, the car driven by Applicant No. 1 collided with the rear side of the truck. As a result, Rakhi Nag suffered severe injuries to her head, chest, and other parts of her body, she died on the spot and Kunal Nag also suffered severe injuries to his head, chest and nose. He was immediately taken to the Community Health Center, Antagarh but looking to the severity of his injuries, he was referred to and admitted at Medishine Hospital, Raipur, where he underwent treatment for about 15 days. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 32 years old healthy woman and was doing the work of stitching, embroidery and earning Rs.200/- per day. She was elected Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Kodagaon. 3. Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2 submitted reply denying the averments made in the claim application. It was pleaded that claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation on false and frivolous grounds. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was holding valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3. 4 4. Non-applicant No.3 also filed reply denying the averments made in the claim application. It was pleaded that accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of car, who was driving the car in rash and negligent manner and collided with the stationary truck. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.11,97,200/-, fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding the driver of offending vehicle negligent overlooking the fact that truck was stationary, deceased was travelling in a car driven by claimant No.1, which dashed with truck. He contended that it was composite negligence on the part of the driver of car. He further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to Claimant No. 2 towards the injuries sustained and medical expenses incurred, despite absence of any supporting documents on record 7. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants would submit that there is no dispute that car in which deceased was travelling met with an accident with truck. As deceased was not driving the car and was only an occupant, therefore, it will be composite negligent of drivers of the vehicles so far as it relates to the injuries sustained by occupant/deceased. He also pointed out that claimants can file compensation against any of the two vehicles as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvaran & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 748. He also submits that Division Bench of this Court has also 5 considered the identical issue in case of Smt. Prateeksha Vs. Satruhan Lal & Ors, in MAC No.754 of 2014, decided on 29.09.2020. Claimants have filed separate appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in MAC No.759/2021 on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month only to be on lower side and further claimant No.2 and 3 were not awarded compensation towards loss of consortium. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 and 5 in MAC No.630 of 2021 would support the impugned award. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 10. So far as submission made by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company (in MAC No.630 of 2021) is concerned, according to submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, deceased was travelling in car along with her husband and car was driven by husband of deceased, which met with an accident with truck bearing No. C.G.-08-AB-5577. The deceased was an occupant of car and not driver of the car, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased/occupant of car was in any manner negligent in causing accident. For her it is composite negligence of the drivers of the both vehicles involved in accident. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvaran & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 748, while considering issue of negligence on the part of driver of two vehicles involved in accident, observed thus :-- 6 “6. “Composite negligence” refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” 12. As the claim is against death of occupant of one of the vehicle, therefore, if the claim is filed against any one of the vehicle, then it is not required to establish extent of negligence of each driver/wrongdoer as it will be composite negligence of any driver. 13. For the forgoing discussion, submission made by learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that learned Claims Tribunal erred in 7 holding the driver of the truck to be sole negligent to be erroneous is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled. 14. So far as the second grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses of injured, respondent No.2/claimant No.2 in MAC 630/2021, perusal of record would show that claimant No.2 suffered motor accidental injuries on 18.10.2017, he was initially taken to Community Health Center, Antagarh, District North Bastar, however, looking to the seriousness of injuries, he was admitted to Shri Medishine Hospital, Raipur. MLC report is placed on record as Ex.P-112, Indoor Ticket of Community Health Center Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker is submitted as Ex.P-12 and discharge summary of Shri Medishine Hospital, Raipur is placed on record as Ex.P-13. Discharge summary (Ex.P-13) mentions head injury (cerebral odema) with facial injury, fracture nasal bone with fracture maxilla left. 15. From the aforementioned facts of the case, it is appearing that claimant No.2 Kunal Nag suffered injuries over his person, he was admitted for about five days at Shri Medishine Hospital, Raipur. Claimant may have also expended money on transportation of claimant No.2 from Antagarh to Raipur. Looking to the age of claimant No.2 to be 14 years, he would have attended by some person, claimant/injured suffered pains and suffering due to nature of injuries suffered by him and considering the aforementioned nature of the injuries suffered by claimant No.2, lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the claimant No.2 cannot be said to be excessive, 8 therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that award of Rs.50,000/- to the claimant No.2 without there being any evidence on record is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled. 16. In view of the forgoing discussions, MAC No. 630 of 2021 filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is having no merit, which is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. 17. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MAC No.759 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that income of deceased assessed is less, is concerned, though there is pleading in the claim application that deceased was doing the work of stitching, embroidery as also the work of beauty parlor and earning Rs.200/- per day, however, there is no admissible evidence in this regard. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kodagaon and was getting stipend of Rs.2,000/- per month. However, no clinching evidence was brought on record to prove income of the deceased. In absence of specific proof and evidence about income of deceased, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the deceased on notional basis, however, learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month only overlooking the date of accident as 18.10.2017. For assessing income of the deceased on notional basis, 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 of which deceased was resident of. Learned 9 Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act. 18. In the case at hand, there is no suggesting evidence to prove the wages given to unskilled labourer on the date of accident at the place of which deceased was resident of. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess income of the deceased treating her to be labourer and assessing her income 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 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 was Rs.7,930/- per month. Hence, income of the deceased is determined as Rs.7,930/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 19. Perusal of the award reveals that the learned Claims Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects to the assessed income of the deceased, deducted 1/3 for personal and living expenses, and applied multiplier of 16, which are in accordance 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, and National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 20. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards future prospects and funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to claimant No.1, however, failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium to claimants No.2 and 3, who are children of deceased. In case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 10 18 SCC 130 types of consortium is explained as loss of spousal consortium for widow/widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. Hence, the claimant No.2 and 3 being the children of deceased are also entitled for loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has also held that the compensation under other conventional heads should be enhanced after every three years by 10%. In case at hand, accident is of the year 2017. Hence, there shall be increase of 10% on the amount of compensation under other conventional heads. So, by enhancing the amount awarded under other conventional heads by 10%, the appellants are now entitled for a sum of Rs. 16,500/- each (15000+10%) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses i.e. total Rs.33,000/- under both the heads. Likewise, appellants No.1 to 3 are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each (40000 + 10%) i.e. Rs.1,32,000/- towards loss of consortium (spousal and parental). The award of Rs.55,000/- (Rs.50,000 + 5,000) to the claimant No.2 towards the grievous injuries suffered by him, pain and suffering and attendant is affirmed. 22. On the basis of above, compensation awarded, needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 7,930 x 12 = 95,160.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 95,160.00 + 38,064.00 = 1,33,224.00 3. 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,33,224.00 – 44,408.00 = 88,816.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 16 : 88,816 x 16 = 14,21,056.00 11 5. For loss of spousal and parental to the appellants No.1 to 3 of Rs.44,000/- each (Rs.44,000 x 3) : 1,32,000.00 6. For funeral expenses : 16,500.00 7. For loss of estate : 16,500.00 8. For grievous injuries, pain and suffering and attendant : 55,000.00 Grand Total : 16,41,056.00 23. Accordingly, the MAC No.630 of 2021 filed by appellant/Insurance Company is dismissed and MAC No.759 of 2021 filed by appellants/claimants is allowed in part. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.16,41,056.00. Any amount paid to the claimants/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. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram