1 2025:CGHC:31487 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1797 of 2019 1. Heera Singh Sahu, S/o Domar Sahu, Aged About 46 Years (At Present 51 Years), R/o Village Raveli, Police Station & Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Rekha Sahu, W/o Heera Singh Sahu, Aged About 42 Years (At Present 47 Years), R/o Village Raveli, Police Station & Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Ramnaryan Singh Rajput, S/o Sadhu Singh, R/o Village Bhimpuri, Post Udaypur, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Bearing Truck No. CG. 07/ZC/2174). 2. Ramji Bharti, S/o Shivnand Bharti, R/o A.C.C. Main Gate Rajiv Nagar, Jamul, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle Bearing Truck No. CG. 07/ZC/2174). 3. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E/8, E.P.I.P. Rico Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur (Rajsthan) 302033, Branch Office - Raipur, Banstal Road, Millennium Plaza T.F. 27, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Bearing Truck No. CG. 07/ZC/2174). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu 2 Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. The 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 16.07.2014 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.21/2014, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of Rs.2,30,000/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 18.03.2012 at about 09:00 a.m., when deceased Tarun Sahu was coming from Village Jamgaon on his motorcycle, on the way one truck bearing Registration No.CG-07-ZC/2174 (hererinafter referred as offending vehicle) driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle of deceased due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries, on different parts of the body, including head and died on the spot. On the basis of information of accident, Crime No.50/2012 was registered against respondent No.1/driver of Truck for alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC. 3. Appellants, who are mother and father of deceased Tarun Sahu, filed an application under Section 166, 140 of the Act of 1988 before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of ₹ 30,86,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 21 years of age and was an able bodied person. Before the accident, he was working as conductor in Randhawa Travels, from which he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and 3 the evidence brought on record, learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition of the appellants/claimants and awarded Rs.2,30,000/-, against which the present appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the awarded amount. 4. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation by assessing income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month only, overlooking the age of deceased as 21 years, nature of occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal further erred in applying the multiplier of 10 instead of 18 in the facts of the case, where the deceased was aged about only 21 years. The amount of compensation under other conventional heads is also on lower side and prays for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company would oppose the submission of the counsel for the appellants and would submits that the learned Claims Tribunal taking note of the fact that the claimants are parents of the deceased and the accident to be of the year 2012, has considered the income of the deceased and has awarded just and fair compensation to the claimants, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 7. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded the age of the deceased as 21 years and he was engaged as conductor in a bus run by Randhawa Travels and his income is pleaded as Rs.6,000/- per month. To prove the 4 nature of occupation and income, claimants have examined the claimant No.2 as AW-1, in her evidence she stated the engagement of the deceased as conductor and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Lalit Kumar Sahu is examined as AW-2, who is a cousin brother of the deceased. Claimants have not examined the employer, nor submitted any documentary evidence to support the pleading of salary to be paid by employer. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the pleadings and the self serving statement for evidence of the claimants cannot be accepted to be the proof with regard to the income of the deceased from salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal disbelieving the pleadings of the salary and the evidence in this regard had taken recourse to assess the income of the deceased on notional basis, which is the correct step taken by the Tribunal. However, the learned Claims Tribunal, while assessing the income of the deceased notionally has not taken into consideration, the factors like the cost of living, price index, wage structure prevailing in the area of which the deceased was resident of and also the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and prevailing on the date of accident. As there is no evidence to suggest the wage rate prevailing in the area, where the deceased was a resident of, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased keeping in mind minimum wages fixed by the competent authority. Considering the above facts of the case, the age of the deceased, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.4,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 9. The learned Claims Tribunal to compute the compensation has made deduction of 50%, the deceased being unmarried and further had applied the multiplier of 10, which is is erroneous. Even, if the claimants are parents, multiplier is to be applied keeping in mind the age of the deceased. As the deceased was aged about 21 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 18. It is ordered accordingly. 5 10. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects, the award of future prospects has been crystallized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and has observed that in case where the deceased was not in permanent employment/self employment and below age of 40 years there shall be addition of 40% of the established income. As deceased was 21 years of age, therefore, there shall be addition of 40% of the established income. It is ordered accordingly. 11. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards the love and affection. The award of compensation under another conventional heads has been specified and quantified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), and it is held that the claimants would be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- toward funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. 12. The consortium has further been categorized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and held that there are three types of consortium, i.e., loss of spousal consortium to the husband/wife, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium. The award of compensation under other heads is not in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. 6 14. Monthly income of deceased is assessed as Rs.4,000/- ie., yearly income as Rs.48,000/-. Upon adding 40% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to Rs.67,200/-. After deducting 1/4 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to Rs.50,400/-. Upon applying multiplier of 18, total loss of dependency will come to Rs.9,07,200/-. Appellants/Claimants shall further be entitled for towards loss of filial consortium to appellants No.1 to 2 and ₹ 40,000/- each. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants/claimants shall further be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = Rs.48,000/- ( 4000x12) ₹ B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (Rs.48,000 x 40% = Rs. 67,200) C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (Rs.67,200 x 1/4= Rs.16,800; Rs.67,200 – Rs.16,800 = Rs.50,400) D) Multiplier of 18 Rs.45,000 x 18 = Rs.8,10,000/- Rs.9,07,200/- Loss of filial consortium to appellants No. 1 & 2 (Rs.40,000 to each appellants/claimants) (40,000 x2) Rs.80,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.10,17,200/- 15. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs.10,17,200/- instead of Rs.2,30,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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 7 adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. At this stage, counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that as there is a long inordinate delay in filing this appeal, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for the interest for the delayed period. 17. Considering the submission of counsel for respondent No.3 and the period of delay in filing the instant appeal and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court Lakkamma Versus United Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that claimants shall not be entitled for the interest for the delayed period of 1364 days. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- Sd/Sd- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA