1 2025:CGHC:24523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1830 of 2019 1. Nam Das S/o Late Kunjbihari Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Amli Malgi, Police Station Pandatarai In Place Of Police Station Kunda Is Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Judgment, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2. Santoshi Bai D/o Kunjbihari Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Amli Malgi, Police Station Pandatarai In Place Of Police Station Kunda Is Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Judgment, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants-claimants Versus 1. Aamin Khan S/o Mahmud Khan Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dhakoli, District Alwav, Rajasthan. 2. Fajrudddin S/o Nasir Khan Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Palka, Police Station E.N.B., Tahsil & District Alwar, Rajasthan. 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited Balaji Tower First Floor 81, New Subhash Nagar, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 16/6/2025 1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 11.7.2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Kabirdham (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.68/2018 by which learned Claims Tribunal allowed application of appellant in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.80,000/- to claimants/appellants herein, in a death case. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant 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.17,50,000/- under various heads, for the death of their mother Jhariharin Bai in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, on 21.5.2018 at about 5:15 p.m. Jhariharin Bai was returing home on motorcycle. Appellant No.1 was riding the motorcycle and Jhariharin Bai was a pillion. When they reached near Chaarbhanta Chouraha, truck bearing regisration number RJ02-GB-5148 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’), which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed their motorcycle due to which Jhariharin Bai fell down and offending vehicle ran over her as a result she died on the spot. 3. Driver and owner of offending motorcycle filed reply denying 3 allegation of negligent driving and pleading that accident resulting in death of deceased occurred due to negligent driving of motorcycle by its driver who lost control over it. Insurance Company also filed a separate reply pleading that claimants being major son and daughter of deceased are not entitled for compensation. At the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the materials brought on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver and accordingly, allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.80,000/- i.e. Rs.65,000/- to son and Rs.15,000/- to daughter. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the appellants by recording that they were not dependent on the deceased. He submits that appellant No.1 is unmarried and hails from lower strata of society, for the purpose of maintaining satisfactory living standard, he was dependent upon the income of her mother also. Hence, the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed amount of compensation considering the income of deceased as 4 pleaded in the application, adding future prospects to it and applying the multiplier as per law. Hence, she prays for enhancement of compensation suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 vehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. He contended that the claimants who lost their parents or any family member and dependent on the income of deceased, are only entitled to compensation. Appellant No.1 is major son and appellant No.2 is married daughter of the deceased. They were not dependent on the deceased or her income. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Manjuri Bera (Smt) vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinish Jain & ors, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 619. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case including impugned award. 8. Claimants-appellants, who are major son and daughter of the deceased, have filed application seeking compensation on the ground that they are legal heirs of deceased who was earning Rs.90,000/- per annum by doing work of agriculture 5 and due to untimely death of their mother, they suffered loss of income. Age of deceased on the date of accident was 55 years, as mentioned in the postmortem report. 9. Appellant No.1 Nam Das was examined as NAW-1 before the Claims Tribunal. He has stated in his statement about the manner in which accident occurred with offending vehicle. He has further deposed that his sister is married and residing with her husband in village Ruse and is being maintained by her husband. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence available in record, recorded in Para-14 of impugned award that on the date of accident, appellant No.1 was unmarried and his mother was taking care of him. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when appellant No.1 was unmarried, deceased might be taking care of the house, preparing food for appellant No.1, maintaining house, washing clothes and utensils etc. 11. In the aforementioned facts, where appellant No.1 is unmarried son, the Claims Tribunal erred in not considering that appellant No.1 was dependent upon the deceased, who was doing all household works like cooking food, cleaning clothes and utensils, taking care of appellant No.1 and may also expending money of her income upon him in natural course. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, appellant No.1 on 6 the date of accident was dependent upon deceased and being so, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that appellant No.1 was not dependent upon the deceased is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside. 12. As per evidence of appellant No.1, appellant No.2 is married and residing along with her husband in her matrimonial home. Therefore, she cannot be treated to be dependent on deceased on the date of accident. Hence, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that appellant No.2 was not dependent on the deceased does not call for any interference and it is hereby maintained. 13. So far as assessment of compensation is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kirti vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166 considering the claim against death of a lady, who was home maker, has observed thus:- “31. Returning to the question of how such notional income of a homemaker is to be calculated, there can be no fixed approach. It is to be understood that in such cases the attempt by the Court is to fix an approximate economic value for all the work that a homemaker does, impossible though that task may be. Courts must keep in mind the idea of awarding just compensation in such cases, looking to the facts and circumstances...” 14. The work done by a mother in maintaining the house, cooking food and taking care of appellant No.1-son, cannot be less 7 than the work of a labourer and therefore the corresponding income against the said works would not be less than the wages of a labourer. The accident occurred on 21.5.2017. Deceased was resident of District Kabirdham. Hence, this Court fixes income of deceased at Rs.7,800/- per month, on the basis of the wage rate prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period from 1.4.2017 to 30.9.2017 for a unskilled labour residing in Zone ‘C’ city. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Keeping in view the age of deceased to be 55 years, there shall be addition of 10% towards future aspects, as held in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680; deduction of one-half from the income of deceased towards her personal and living expenses and multiplier of 11 will be applicable, as held in case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, appellant No.1 & 2 will also be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium. 16.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 17.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,800/- per 8 month and after adding 10% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.8,580/- and annual income would be Rs.1,02,960/-. Out of this amount, one-half is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as held above. After deducting one- half, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.51,480/-. As deceased was 52 years of age, upon applying multiplier of 11 to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency will come to Rs.5,66,280/-. Besides this, appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.80,000/- (40000x2) towards parental consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellant No.1 is 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 comes to Rs.6,76,280/- This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. 18.Rest of the conditions mentioned in the 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. 19.In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/