1 2025:CGHC:36637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 16 of 2022 1 - Ashwani Patnaik S/o Shri Laxminarayan Patnaik, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Tamnar, P.S. And Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vikram Patnaik, S/o Shri Ashwani Patnaik, Aged About 34 Years Village R/o Village Tamnar, P.S. And Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vinayak Patnaik, S/o Shri Ashwani Patnaik, Aged About 32 Years Village R/o Village Tamnar, P.S. And Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Vinita Patnaik D/o Shri Ashwani Patnaik, Aged About 30 Years Village R/o Village Tamnar, P.S. And Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Visha Patnaik S/o Shri Ashwani Patnaik, Aged About 28 Years Village R/o Village Tamnar, P.S. And Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. … Appellants versus 1 - Jeet Singh S/o Shri Manjeet Singh, Occupation Owner Of Vehicle, R/o Ward No. 4, Deepupara, Behramal, Jharsuguda, District Jharsuguda (Odisha) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.07.30 11:08:56 +0530 2 2 - Ramvijay Pandey S/o Late Raghuvansh Pandey, Aged About 55 Years Driver, R/o Village Purnadihi, P.S. Mudhawar, District Chhapra (Bihar). 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager Jharsuguda, Kalimandir Road, Pahad Mandir Chauk Jharsuguda, District Jharsuguda (Odisha). ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Manoj K. Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 28.07 .2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 22/06/2021 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Gharghoda, District Raigarh in Claim Case No. 09/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 11,07,500/- as compensation for the death of Gauri Bai Patnaik @ Kunti Patnaik, aged about 50 years, who worked as a Tailor. 3 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 27/06/2017, deceased Gauri Bai Patnaik @ Kunti Patnaik was travelling with her relatives in a car to attend a marriage at Rajgangapur when near village Katiyamar within the ambit of Police Station Badgaon, District Sundargarh (Odisha), a truck bearing Registration No. OD 23 D 4655 which was being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner dashed their car and caused the accident due to which, she died. Report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Badgaon and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the Court for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 of IPC. 3. Appellants, who are husband and four children of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,75,814/- pleading therein that on the date of the accident, deceased Gauri Bai Patnaik @ Kunti Patnaik was aged about 50 years and worked as a Tailor and on account of her death, under the head of loss of dependency and other heads, the aforesaid compensation with interest be awarded in their favour. 4. Respondents No. 1 & 2 -owner and driver of the truck were served notices but they remained ex – parte. 4 5. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company has opposed the claim application stating that the accident has not been caused by the offending vehicle and at the time of the incident, it was being driven in breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, therefore, respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) is not liable for payment of any compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Gauri Bai Patnaik alias Kunti Patnaik died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid truck which was driven by respondent No. 2 and owned by respondent No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs. 11,07,500/- as total compensation with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month which should be Rs. 9,100/- as per Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labourer, 5 therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Gauri Bai Patnaik alias Kunti Patnaik to be Rs. 6,000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labourer, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 9,100/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and Rs. 1,09,200/- per annum. 6 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 9,100 x 12 = Rs. 1,09,200/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 25% i.e. Rs. 18,000 = Rs. 90,000/- (+) 25% i.e. Rs. 27,300 = Rs. 1,36,500/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 22,500= Rs. 67,500/- (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 34,125/- = Rs. 1,02,375- 4. Multiplier (x) 13 = Rs. 8,77,500/- (x) 13 = Rs. 13,30,875/- 5. Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses Rs. 30,000/- Rs, 30,000/- 6. Love and Affection Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Rs. 11,07,500/- Rs. 15,60,875/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 11,07,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,60,875/-. Hence, after 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 deducting the amount of Rs. 11,07,500/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,53,375/-. The Respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 14/08/2018 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. The deposit Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet