-1- 2025:CGHC:31845 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1897 of 2019 1 - Munni W/o Late Indersai Aged About 25 Years 2 - Pramila D/o. Late Indersai Aged About 6 Years (Minor) 3 - Sandip S/o. Late Indersai Aged About 3 Years (Minor) 4 - Sharmili D/o. Late Indersai Aged About 1 Years (Minor) Appellants/claimants No. 2 to 4 are minors Through their Natural Guardian i.e.. Appellant No. 1, Munni, Widow Of Late Indersai, Aged About 25 Years. 5 - Batohi S/o. Late Posta Aged About 62 Years 6 - Sanjho W/o. Shri Batohi Aged About 58 Years All are Pahadi Korwa By Caste, Occupation- Nil, Resident Of - Amatpani (Aamarpani), Panchayat- Aasandeeh, Police Station- Dhaurpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Dhaniram S/o Shri Vipta Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jori, Post- Babaull, Police Station Dhaurpur, Tahsil- Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg 15/df- 7056) 2 - Dilbodhan S/o. Shri Baliram Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village Jori, Post- Babauli, Police Station-Dhaurpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg 15/df- 7056) 3 - Iffco Tokeo General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, 205, Second Floor, In Front Of M.M. Silver Plaza, Udyog Bhawan, Near Minerals Office, Mahabeer Nagar, Ring Road No. 01, Raipur Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg 15/df - 7056), ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.18 10:16:09 +0530 -2- __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None appears though served For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 10/07/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned VI Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (CG) vide award dated 6th September 2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.237 of 2018. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that claimants have filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 pleading therein that on 18.05.2018 when Indersai was travelling as a labourer in a sand loaded vehicle tractor No.-CG 15/DF-7056, at around 2:30 pm, driver of the tractor (non-applicant No.2) driving it rashly and negligently overturned it, caused an accident, due to which Indersai came under the tractor and suffered serious injuries. He was taken to hospital for his treatment but he succumbed to injuries during course of his treatment. Deceased Indersai was working as a labourer and in his spare time he was also doing farming and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Applicant No. 1 is wife, applicants No. 2 to 4 are children and -3- applicants No. 5 and 6 are parents of the deceased and they were dependent on him. The applicants/claimants have prayed for total compensation of Rs.34,30,000/- from the non-applicants. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 due to their non-appearance before the Claims Tribunal were proceeded ex-parte, no written statement was filed by them. 5. Non-applicant No.3 in its written statement has denied the pleading made in the claim application and further pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased Indersai was traveling on the unregistered trolley attached to the tractor along with his other friend Vivek, Rajesh and Munesh. Tractor and trolley are two different motor vehicles which need to be insured separately. Since the above trolley was not insured by non-applicant, non-applicant No.3 is not responsible for the risk arising out of the accident. The tractor does not have seating capacity and space for any person other than the driver. Despite there being no seating space for any person in the trolley vehicle, non-applicant No.1 permitted the deceased and other persons to travel on his own responsibility, hence, non-applicant No.3 is not responsible to pay any amount of compensation. On the date of accident, non-applicant No.2 did not have a valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle owned by non-applicant No.1 i.e. tractor bearing No.-CG. 15/DF-7056 was insured by the non-applicant no.3 only for agricultural work and the insurance company is not responsible for the accident caused because offending vehicle was used for commercial purpose. The tractor was driven in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the claim against non-applicant No.3 /insurance company be -4- dismissed. 6. 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 non-applicant No.2 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Indersai suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was found to be proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants No. 1 & 2 (Owner and Driver) liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4500/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads and awarded Rs.10,33,900/ - as compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased only Rs.4500/- per month overlooking the date of accident i.e. 18.05.2018 and pleadings made in the claim application that deceased was working as labourer. Learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered wages prevalent on the date of accident or the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. He also contended that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation under loss of dependency and under other conventional heads, not awarded compensation under head of ‘loss of consortium’ to children and parents of the deceased. 8. Despite service of notice no representation has been made by respondent No.1 & 2. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submission of -5- learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that insurance company has been exonerated from its liability. He, however, submits that amount of compensation awarded is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the claim case. 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants with regard to assessment of income as Rs.4500/- per month by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, date of accident is 18.05.2018. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded the occupation of deceased as labourer and his income to be Rs.10,000/- per month. True it is that claimants have failed to prove income of deceased by placing admissible piece of evidence, however, in absence of admissible piece of evidence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased considering the other factors like cost of living, price index, wage rates structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. 12. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018, monthly income for ‘unskilled labourer’ has been fixed as Rs.7930/- per month. Hence, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.7930/- per month instead of Rs.4500/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is -6- ordered accordingly. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal, looking the age of the deceased on the date of accident to be 28 years, has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects. Looking to the number of dependents, learned Tribunal has also correctly made deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses of deceased and looking to the age of deceased as 28 years, has correctly applied multiplier of 17 in tune of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. 14. Learned Claims Tribunal has further correctly awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’. However, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to claimants No. 2 to 4 children and claimant No.5 & 6 parents of deceased. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, appellants/claimants No. 2 to 4 being children of deceased will be entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant/appellants No.5 & 6 being parents of the deceased will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards ‘loss of filial consortium’. It is ordered accordingly. 15. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- -7- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 7930 x 12 = 95160 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (95160 x 40% =38064) 95160 + 38064 = 1,33,224 (C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (1,33,224 x 1/4= 33306) 1,33,224 - 33306 = 99918/- (D) Multiplier of 17 101556 x 17= 16,98,606 : Rs. 16,98,606 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Spousal Consortium to claimant/appellant No.1 (wife) : (+) Rs. 40,000 5. Loss of parental consortium to claimants/appellants No. 2 to 4 (children) @ 40,000/- each (+) Rs. 1,20,000 6. Loss of filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- to claimant/appellant No.5 & 6 (parents) : (+) Rs. 80,000 Total compensation Rs. 19,68,606 16. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 19,68,606/- instead of Rs.10,33,900/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 17. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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 now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions -8- of impugned award shall remain intact. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/-- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen