1 / 6 2025:CGHC:29722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1845 of 2019 1. Ramlal Patel S/o Shri Darbari Patel Aged About 55 Years 2. Tarachand Patel S/o Shri Ramlal Patel Aged About 30 Years Both are R/o Village Amurada, Police Station Khallari, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Omprakash Lohar S/o Late Shri Arjun Lohar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Parsada Ward Number 6, Post Bemcha, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver and Owner of Vehicle Number CG-06-M-0833) 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Purana Raipur Naka, Raipur Road, Near United Bank Of India Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Vehicle Number CG-06-M- 0833) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 02/07/2025 1. 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 24.07.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 114/2018, whereby learned PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 5,08,750/- as compensation in death case. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 11.02.2018, when Basanta Bai was returning to her village Amurda with her handcart from village Kolda Madai, at 07:30 pm, non-applicant No. 1 coming from village Khusrupali while driving his vehicle Chhota Hathi No. CG 06-M- 0833 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) rashly and negligently hit her hard and caused accident. As a result of the accident, Basanta Bai suffered serious injuries on her head and leg. She was taken to Government Hospital Bagbahara, where she succumbed to the injuries suffered by her in the accident. A report of the accident was lodged at Police Station Khallari, on the basis of which Crime No. 30/2018 was registered against non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1. 3. Appellants-claimants who are widower husband and child of deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 24,50,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 50 years of age, was an able bodied person. Before the accident she used to do work of sweet vendor on a handcart and was earning ₹ 15,000/- per month. 4. Respondent No. 1 / Non-applicant No. 1 -owner and driver of the offending vehicle submitted his reply to the claim application, while denying the adverse pleadings made therein it was further pleaded that he has not caused any accident. On the date of the accident, he was possessing valid and effective license to drive the vehicle and his vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 2. 5. Respondent No. 2/ Non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the 3 / 6 negligence of the deceased Basanta Bai. On the date of accident, non- applicant No. 1 did not have a valid and effective license to drive the vehicle, as such there was violation of the conditions of insurance policy. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased- Basanta Bai died because of grievous injuries suffered by her in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle owned and driven by non- applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 5,08,750/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application and fastened liability upon non-applicants jointly and severally. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager sum of compensation by assessing the income of deceased on notional basis as ₹ 4,500/- per month overlooking the nature of occupation as pleaded and stated by claimants in their claim application and evidence of working as sweet vendor. He also pointed out that the Tribunal further erred in deducting 1/2 towards personal and living expenses overlooking the fact that claimants are the husband and son of deceased and therefore, appropriate deduction would be 1/3. Tribunal has further awarded less amount of compensation on other conventional heads and prays for suitable enhancement of amount of compensation. 8. Learned counsel or Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that Claims Tribunal considering the fact that there is only one dependent, ie., claimant No. 1-husband, has applied the deduction which does not call for any interference. The amount of compensation is just and proper in the facts of case and it does not call for any interference. He further submits that the 4 / 6 Claims Tribunal erred in awarding 25% of the established income towards future prospects whereas the appropriate addition would be only 10%. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record of claim case. 10. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants- claimants with regard to assessing notional income of ₹ 4500/- is concerned, claimants though have pleaded in the claim application that the deceased was working as sweet vendor and earning ₹15,000 per month, however, no substantive and admissible piece of evidence is brought on record except self serving statement of claimants. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of deceased on notional basis, however, fell into error in not taking into consideration factors like age of deceased, date of accident, cost of living, price index and wages prevailing on the date of accident ie.,of the year 2018 and has not considered minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer. As the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased, I find it appropriate to hold that the occupation of deceased to be one of the unskilled labourer. As there is no material to suggest the wages fixed at the place where the deceased was resident of, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing within the State of Chhattisgarh. As per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.10.2017 till 31.03.2018 for unskilled labourer for C-Zone area is ₹ 7,930/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of deceased on the date of accident is assessed as ₹ 7,930. It is ordered accordingly. 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the Tribunal fell into error in deducting 1/2 towards personal and living expenses is concerned, deduction of personal and living expenses in death cases was 5 / 6 considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and it is held that where the deceased is married person, there shall be deduction of 1/3. In the case at hand, deceased was married and claimant No. 1 is her husband and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 1/2 instead of 1/3, hence, appropriate deduction will be 1/3 in the facts of the case. It is ordered accordingly. Application of multiplier of 13 in view of the said decision of Sarla Verma (supra) cannot be said to be erroneous, it is affirmed. 12. So far as the award of compensation on other conventional heads is concerned, Claims Tribunal taking note of the decision of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has awarded ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses which is in the tune of the aforementioned decision of Pranay Sethi (supra). The award of compensation towards loss of consortium is further explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, wherein it is held that the children of the deceased are also entitled for the loss of parental consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. In the case at hand, appellant No. 2/ claimant No.2 is the son of deceased, therefore, he is also entitled for ₹ 40,000. 13. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the insurance company that the Claims Tribunal erred in adding 25% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects is concerned, Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) observed that there shall be addition of income @ 40% where the deceased on the date of accident was not in permanent employment and below 40 years, addition of 25% where the deceased was in between 40 to 50 years. In the case at hand, deceased was held to be aged 6 / 6 50 years, there is no conclusive proof of age. Tribunal took note of age mentioned in the post mortem report which is not scientifically assessed and therefore there shall be addition of 25% of assessed income towards future prospects, which cannot be said to be erroneous. 14. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 95,160/- (₹ 7930x12) B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 95160 x 125% = ₹ 1,18,950) C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 118950 x 1/3= ₹ 39650); ₹ 118950 - ₹ 39650 = ₹ 79,300/- D) Multiplier of 13 ₹ 79,300 x 13 = ₹ 10,30,900/- ₹ 10,30,900/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 ₹ 40,000/- Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 ₹ 40,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 15,000/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 11,40,900/- 15. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 11,40,900/- instead of ₹ 5,08,750/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9% 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 adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn