1 2025:CGHC:33987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 830 of 2021 1 - Datnakar Shah S/o Santosh Shah Aged About 29 Years Residence Of Gandhi Nagar Sirki, Post Office Beltikiri, Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sanskriti Rani D/o Datnakar Shah Aged About 1 Years Minor Therefore Represented Through Natural Guardian Datnakar Shah (Father) , Residence Of Gandhi Nagar Sirki, Post Office Beltikiri, Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh. ...Appellants versus 1 - Ramakant Diksena S/o Late Sohan Lal Aged About 41 Years R/o Sirli Chowk Hardibazar , Tahsil Pali District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Driver Cum Owner Of The Vehicle). 2 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Sada Complex, Transport Nagar Korba Chhattisgarh (Insurer). ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Vikash Patel, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No.2/Insurance Company : : None present, though served. Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 18/07/2025 1. This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of 2 amount of compensation awarded by learned First Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District- Korba (CG) vide award dated 19th of March, 2021 passed in Claim Case No. 01 of 2020. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.07.2019 at about 10.30 hours when Mrs. Darpan Shah alongwith her husband namely Datnakar were returning to her home from Bilaspur on a motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 12 A.H. 3107, at that time, driver-cum-owner of a Pickup vehicle bearing registration No. CG12- E/1256 while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently near village Saraipali Patel Gairrage, Mainroad dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which Mrs. Darpan Shah sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Dipka hospital where she was declared brought dead by the doctor. The report of the said incident was registered in police station Kusmunda bearing FIR No. 258/19 for alleged offences under Section 279, 337, 304A of Indian Penal Code. At the time of accident, Mrs. Darpan Sahu was 24 years of age, was engaged in work of tailoring and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The Claimants, who are unfortunate husband and minor daughter, have filed claim application for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,60,000/- before the learned Claims Tribunal. 3. Respondent No. 1 / driver-cum-owner of offending vehicle has filed written statement denying the substantive pleadings made in the claim petition. It is pleaded that the alleged accident was not occurred with his vehicle. At the time of incident, it was a rainy day, due to which, appellant No. 1/claimant while driving his motorcycle recklessly at high speed, slipped from the road and his wife got injured. It is also stated that on the date accident, his vehicle was insured with the New India 3 Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 herein, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. Non-applicant No. 2/Insurance Company also filed written statement denying the substantive pleading made in the claim petition. It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash & negligent driving of the appellant No. 1/claimant, therefore, he himself is responsible for such accident. It is further pleaded that at the time of accident, respondent No. 1 / driver-cum-owner did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. As such, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy and respondent No. 2/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Mrs. Darpan Shah suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries during treatment. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicant No. 2 liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs 4,000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs. 9,74,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation by assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/-pm only overlooking the occupation and income of the deceased, as pleaded in the claim application as also the date of accident which is 24.07.2019. 4 It is also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards the head of loss of future prospect and therefore, the compensation be suitably enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance Company/respondent No. 2 while opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for the interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. 9. The fact that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle Pick-up and liability to satisfy the impugned award upon the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, are not in dispute. 10. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. Claimants, by filing claim petition, have pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was doing stitching work, taking tuition of the small children and thereby earning Rs. 10,000/-pm, however, except the self serving statement of the claimant No. 1, no other admissible evidence is brought on record to prove the occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/-per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- per annum notionally. 11. Even if the claimants failed to prove the occupation and income of the deceased, it is for the claims Tribunal to consider the occupation of the deceased to be not below the labourer because the deceased even if 5 to be treated as house wife, she was required to work from early morning to late night, to take care of all the family members in the house as also to maintain the house and, therefore, she works if not more, but even not less than the labourer and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased treating her to be one of the labourer. The deceased was the resident of district Korba and, therefore, considering the minimum wage fixed by competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 determined for the unskilled labourer for the period from 1.04.2019 to 30.09.2019 for C zone area is determined as Rs. 8,000/- per month and therefore, the wages of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 8,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12. According to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimant will also be entitled for the compensation towards the future prospect. As on the date of accident, deceased was only 24 years of age i.e. less than 40 years and, therefore, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income to the income of the deceased towards future prospect. It is ordered accordingly. 13. As there are two claimants, there shall be deduction of 1/3rd towards personal & living expenses of the deceased and the application of multiplier of 18 for computing compensation to be awarded to the claimants towards loss of dependency. Apart from above, claimants shall further be entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of parental consortium (Total Rs. 80,000/-). It is ordered accordingly. 6 14. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 8,000 x 12 = 96,000/- (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (96,000 x 40% =38,400) 96,000+ 38,400 = 1,34,400/- (C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (1,34,400 x 1/3 =44,800) 1,34,400- 44,800 = 89,600/- (D) Multiplier of 18 89,600x 18 = 16,12,800/- : Rs. 16,12,800/- 2. Loss of Spousal Consortium & loss of filial consortium to claimants/appellant No.1 & 2 @ 40,000/- each : (+) Rs. 80,000 3. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 Total compensation Rs. 17,22,800/- 15. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 17,22,800/- instead of Rs.9,74,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 16. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has 7 now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge amita AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.08.06 17:11:37 +0530