1 2025:CGHC:39247 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 815 of 2021 1 - Smt. Hempushpa Shandilya Wd/o Late Omprakash Shandilya, Aged About 25 Years R/o Bhatapara, Jhura Nawagaon, Barna, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Yogendra Kumar Shandilya S/o Late Omprakash Shandilya, Aged About 1 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt Hempushpa Shandilya R/o Bhatapara, Jhura Nawagaon, Barna, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt Nirmala Shandilya W/o Balduram Shandilya, Aged About 52 Years R/o Bhatapara, Jhura Nawagaon, Barna, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 4 - Balduram Shandilya S/o Late Sharda Ram Shandilya, Aged About 58 Years R/o Bhatapara, Jhura Nawagaon, Barna, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Umesh Das Manikpuri S/o Shri Vikram Das Manikpuri, Aged About 30 Years Permanent R/o Village Rampur, Police Station Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Present Address - Kankalipara, Police Station - Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Alleged Vehicle Tata S. Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04- Hx-8169) 2 - Jain Traders Proprietor Yashwant Jain, S/o Sohanlal Jain, Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Neha Fancy Stores, Akriti Vihar, Amlidih, Police Station Rajendra Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Alleged Vehicle Tata S. Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04-Hx-8169), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Through - Manager, Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No. 205, Second Floor, Mm Silver SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No.1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Alleged Vehicle Tata S. Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04- Hx-8169) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate along with Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 06/08/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 23.10.2021 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 07/2019. 2. Motor-accidental death of the appellant, involvement of the offending vehicle, Respondent No. 3/Non-Applicant No. 3 to be the insurer of the offending vehicle and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company is not in dispute, hence, this Court is not adverting to the facts as pleaded in the claim application, reply as discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. However, this Court is only considering the grounds raised by the counsel for the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and the submission of the counsel for the respective parties in this regard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that this appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000/- per month only, 3 overlooking the educational qualification as proved by the claimants by submitting relevant documents/testimonials in this regard. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation under the other conventional heads, hence, the award of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability to satisfy the amount of compensation on the ground that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was plied without there being effective fitness certificate. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal had issued a direction to the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter, to recover the same from the Non-Applicant No. 1 & 2. Amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is just and proper. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 also submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 7. Claimants in the claim application have pleaded that the deceased on the date of accident was working as Technical Engineer in service centre and earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. He obtained technical education from Computer Hardware Engineering College Pvt. Ltd. To support the pleadings made in claim application, claimants have submitted mark-sheets of High School Examination (Ex. PC/14), Higher 4 Secondary School Certificate (Ex. PC/15), mark-sheet of graduation (Bachelor in Arts) (Ex. PC/16), mark-sheet of post-graduation (Ex. PC/17), mark-sheet of PGDCA IInd Semester of Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur (Ex. PC/18), mark-sheet of State Board Examination (Ex. PC/19), mark-sheet of Computer Hardware Engineering College Pvt. Ltd. (Ex PC/20), Certificate issued by Computer Hardware Engineering College Pvt. Ltd. (Ex PC/21) and the experience certificate mentioning monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/- issued by Balaji Enterprises is also placed as Ex. P/22. Aforementioned documents placed on record would show that the deceased was an educated person. He had also underwent technical courses like PGDCA and the computer hardware engineering course. The experience certificate (Ex. P/22) could not be proved in accordance with law as the author of the document i.e. the owner of Bajaj Enterprises or any authorized employee/person of Balaji Enterprises is not examined as a witness to prove the experience certificate mentioning income of the deceased. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the income of the deceased as pleaded in the claim application of Rs.18,000/- per month, however, fell into error in determining income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000/- per month which, on the date of accident was even less to the wages, paid to an Unskilled Labourer and therefore, the income of the deceased as assessed by the Learned Claims Tribunal of Rs. 8,000/- per month is not sustainable and accordingly, it is set-aside. 9. In view of the aforementioned discussion made with respect to the qualification of the deceased prior to the date of accident and the 5 certificate of PGDCA and certificate of hardware engineering course, I find it appropriate to consider occupation of the deceased to be of Highly Skilled Worker and to compute his income as Rs. 10,610/- per month as notified by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the ‘B’ Zone area. It is ordered accordingly. 10.The Claims Tribunal added 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospect, applied deduction of 1/4th, multiplier of 17 which is to the tune of the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 which does not call for any interference. 11.Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 16,500/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 16,500/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 1,32,000/- towards the loss of consortium to all the Claimants/Applicants of Rs. 44,000/- each which is after adding 10% of the compensation quantified in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). 12. 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 10,610 X 12 = 1,27,320 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (127320 X 40% = 50,928) (127320 + 50,928 = 1,78,248) (C) Deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses (178248 X 1/4th = 44,562) : Rs. 22,72,662/- 6 (1,78,248 – 44,562 = 1,33,686/-) (D) Multiplier of 17 (1,33,686 X 9 = 22,72,662/-) 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 16,500/- 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 16,500/- 4. Loss of consortium to Claimants/Appellants : (+) Rs. 1,32,000/- Total Compensation : Rs. 24,37,662/- 13. Now, the Appellants/Claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 24,37,662/-. 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. 14. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 15. In result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 16. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge