1 2025:CGHC:31439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1818 of 2019 1. Smt. Chitrarekha W/o Late Premsagar Nishad Aged About 30 Years. 2. Yogesh Nishad S/o Late Premsagar Nishad Aged About 8 Years 3. Ku. Kamini Nishad D/o Late Premsagar Nishad Aged About 5 Years 4. Bhuri Bai W/o Thanuram Aged About 52 Years 5. Thanu Ram Nishad S/o Late Godul Aged About 55 Years (Appellant No.1, 4 and 5 self and appellant No.2 and 3 are minor through legal natural guardian Mother Smt. Chitralekha Nishad and all are resident of Village Achholi, Urla Birgaon, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Manharan Verma S/o Shri Ankahala Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Keshdabri, Police Station And Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Driver of offending vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. CG07/ZC/2765) 2. Alok Shivhare and Sans H.U.F. Worker Alok Shivhare S/o Late G.P. Shivhare Aged About 48 Years R/o House No. 25 Kadambri Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. CG07/ZC/2765). 2 3. Negma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, Shop No. 501, 509, 512, Fifth Floor D.B. City Corporate Park Plot No. 1, Block No.9, Rajbandha Ground, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No.CG07/ZC/2765). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.1& 2 : None though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 8/7/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.4.2019 in Claim Case No.58/2019. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellants-claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.54,50,000/- under various heads, for death of Prem Sagar Nishad in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are widow, children and parents of deceased respectively, on 15.9.2018 at about 2:25 p.m. in the afternoon, when Prem Sagar Nishad driving his motorcycle reached near Sorla Chowk, village Sorla, the truck bearing 3 registration No.CG07-ZC-2765, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed motorcycle of Prem Sagar Nishad as a result he sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. It was pleaded that accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle; at the time of accident deceased was 35 years of age, working as Caretaker and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle, jointly filed reply denying allegation of negligent driving and further pleading that at the time of accident non- applicant No.1-driver was having valid and effective driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, who is liable to make payment of compensation. Non- applicant No.3-Insurance Company also filed a separate reply and took a stand that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and even there was no permit and fitness certificate in favour of offending vehicle. Thus the offending vehicle was plied on road in violation of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties, came to the 4 conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by non-applicant No.1 which resulted in death of deceased; disbelieved version of claimants that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Supervisor in a farm house, by recording that claimant failed to prove the occupation and income of deceased by placing any documentary evidence in that regard. It was also held that there was no violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded compensation of Rs.12,79,600/- and fastened liability upon the non-applicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the award. 5. Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that income of deceased has not been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding amount towards loss of consortium to all the dependent family members of deceased. Therefore, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and 5 perused record of claim case including impugned award. 8. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the claimants have pleaded that deceased was working as Supervisor under one Praveen Chandra Surana and in order to prove occupation and income of deceased has produced salary certificate Ex.P-13 and also examined Praveen Chandra Surana as AW-3. However, the Claims Tribunal disbelieved the oral and documentary evidence with respect to occupation and income of deceased for want of corroborative piece of evidence. The Claims Tribunal has recorded that the salary certificate (Ex.P-13) is issued after the accident and that employer of deceased is though examined but he failed to produce any document like attendance register or salary register to show engagement of deceased under him and payment of salary of Rs.15,000/- per month to the deceased. Even the bank pass book (Ex.P-18) produced by AW-3 does not reflect credit of salary of Rs.15,000/- per month to the account of the deceased prior to his accidental death. 9. It is well settled that when a person claims that he was employer of the deceased and was paying monthly salary to him, then he has to prove the said fact by producing documents like attendance register, pay register, bank statement etc. In case at hand, except producing the certificate Ex.P-13, no other documents have been produced 6 to show the engagement of deceased under AW-3 and payment of salary every month to the extent of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, in absence of cogent or corroborative evidence as to occupation and income of deceased, the Claims Tribunal was right in concluding that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by producing relevant documents and in assessing the income of deceased on notional basis. 10. However, considering the nature of work which deceased was performing during his lifetime, number of dependent family members as also considering that accident occurred on 15.9.2018, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing notional income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Accident occurred on 15.9.2018 and deceased was resident of District Raipur, which comes within the category of ‘A’ Zone, therefore, in view of the minimum wage rate prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for an unskilled labour Zone ‘A’ category, for the relevant period, the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased as Rs.7,930/- per month in stead of Rs.6,000/-. Consequently, this Court assesses the monthly income of deceased as Rs.7,930/-. It is ordered accordingly. 11. Addition of future prospects to the assessed income of deceased; deduction towards personal expenses of deceased 7 and multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal to assess the loss of dependency is in consonance with the law in this regard and the same need no interference. 12. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the widow of deceased only and Rs.15,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, children and parents of victim died in a road accident are also entitled for consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘parental consortium’ and filial consortium. Thus, other claimants being children and mother of the deceased would also be entitled to parental consortium and filial consortium in the sum of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 13.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 14.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,930/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.11,102/- and annual income would be Rs.1,33,224/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as deducted by the Claims Tribunal, 8 and after deducting one-fourth, loss of dependency would come to Rs.99,918/-. Applying multiplier of 16, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.15,98,688/- (99,918 x16). Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 & 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and appellant No.4 & 5, parents of deceased, are entitled for Rs.40,000/- for loss of filial consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation for which now appellants-claimants are entitled, comes to Rs.18,28,688/- (15,98,688 + 40,000+ 40,000+ 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. 15.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/ SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI