1 2025:CGHC:31486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1889 of 2019 1. Smt. Sangeeta Nishad, Wd/o Late Manishankar Nishad, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Near Kali Mandir, Pratapganj Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2. Miss Shobha Nishad, D/o. Late Manishankar Nishad, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Near Kali Mandir, Pratapganj Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3. Master Rupesh Nishad, S/o. Late Manishankar Nishad, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through His Mother Smt. Sangeeta Nishad (Appellant No.1), R/o Near Kali Mandir, Pratapganj Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Sukhiya Nishad, W/o. Late Chaitram Nishad, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Near Kali Mandir, Pratapganj Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1. Dikeshwar Kumar Bhatt, S/o. Bala-Ram Bhatt, Through Gappu Mahindra Travels Pvt. Ltd. Raipur, R/o. Mahindra Travels, Pandari Bus Stand Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver). 2. Gappu Mahindra Travels Pvt. Ltd. Raipur, R/o. Mahindra Travels, Pandari Bus Stand Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner). 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager Branch Office, Opposite Bhadouriya Building Akaswani Road Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company). ... Respondents 2 (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. Counsel for the appellants submits that liability to satisfy the award is upon respondent No.3, which is represented by the counsel, and hence, the appeal be heard finally at motion stage. 2. Submission of counsel for the appellants in not opposed by the counsel for the respective respondents. 3. With the consent of parties, the case is heard finally. 4. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, awarded by learned Second Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) vide award dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No.118/2018. 5. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 16.05.2018, deceased Manishankar Nishad was going to his brother’s house by a motorcycle, when he reached near Village Balenga, at that time, vehicle Mahindra Bus bearing Registration No.CG-04-E-3603 (for short ‘offending vehicle’) driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed the motorcycle, due to which deceased sustained several 3 grievous injuries and died on the spot. On the basis of information of said accident, crime was registered against non-applicant No.1. 6. Appellants, who are the wife, children and mother of deceased Manishankar Nishad, filed an application under Section 166, 140 of the Act of 1988 before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.30,92,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased was about 48 years of age, he was an able bodied person, before the accident, he was running a cycle repairing shop and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed claim application of appellants/claimants, awarded Rs.8,74,375/-, and fastened liability upon non-applicants, jointly and severally to satisfy the impugned award. 8. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded to the claimants in the facts of the case is on lower side. Claimants in their claim application have pleaded the occupation of the deceased of running cycle store/cycle repairing shop and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the learned Claims Tribunal erroneously disbelieved the oral and documentary evidence of the claimants, and erroneously treated the deceased as unskilled labourer and have assessed his income as Rs.5,500/- per month on notional basis. He submits that before the Claims Tribunal, the claimants have produced the receipts of money deposited with the Municipal Corporation against the allotment of the shop/Gumti and also a list of the allottees/persons of shop, which is forwarded by the Nazul 4 Officer of Municipal Corporation to the Electricity Board for providing electricity connection. Thus, claimants have proved the nature of occupation, as pleaded in the claim application of running the cycle repairing shop/cycle store. In alternate, he submits that even if, it is found that the claimants have failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application, considering the documents submitted before the Tribunal and marked as exhibit, deceased ought to have been treated as skilled labourer and his income ought to have been assessed, taking note of the date of accident, minimum wages notified. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation on other conventional heads. 9. Mr. Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposing the submission, submit that the learned Claims Tribunal in para 22 of the award has considered the pleadings and the evidence of the claimants and rightly concluded that the claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of deceased by admissible piece of evidence, and therefore, learned Claims Tribunal have taken recourse to assess the income of the deceased on notional basis, which does not call for any interference. The amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is just and proper, hence, it does not call for any interference. 10. Mr. Virendra Verma, counsel for the respondent No.2 would support the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 5 12. So far as the grounds raised by the learned counsel for appellant that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the documents Ex.P/7 to Ex.P/13, filed before the Claims Tribunal in support of the plea that the deceased on the date of accident, was running a cycle repairing shop is concerned, Ex.P/7 to Ex.P/12 are the receipts of money deposit with the Municipal Council Jagdalpur, the receipts is of the years 1994, 1995 & 1996. The accident occured on 16.05.2018. The claimants have not produced any deposit receipt of Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur of the recent years/months not even four to five old receipts from the date of accident. 13. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation of the deceased, i.e., running a cycle repairing shop/cycle store on the date of accident, is on proper evaluation of evidence and cannot said to be erroneous. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the income of the deceased, who was about 48 years of age, is to be assessed notionally keeping in mind the factors like the cost of living in price index, wage structure prevailing in the area of where the deceased was residing and also minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident. As there is no evidence to suggest the wage rate prevailing in the area, where the deceased was residing, I find it appropriate to consider the income of the deceased keeping in mind minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the relevant period on which accident happened. 14. Perusal of Ex.P/13 would show that it is the copy of letter issued by the office of Collector to the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity 6 Department for providing electricity connection to the persons doing the business in Ghunti named therein along with the nature of business, with which they are engaged. In the said list, the name of deceased Manishankar is mentioned at Serial No.10 and his occupation has been shown as cycle repairing. 15. From the said list, which was prepared by the Office of Collector under the signature of Nazul Officer, it can be presumed that the deceased at some point of time was running cycle repairing shop, and therefore, even if it is to be considered to be working as labourer, he is to be treated as the skilled labourer and income is to be assessed keeping in mind the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act and prevailing on the date of accident. 16. Considering the facts of the case, age of the deceased, I find it appropriate to assess income of the deceased as Rs.9,750/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 17. Considering that the deceased was self-employed person in the age group of 40-50 years and he was survived by four family members, addition of 25% towards future prospects to the assessed income of deceased; deduction of one-fourth towards personal expenses of deceased and multiplier of 13 applied by the Claims Tribunal to assess the loss of dependency as well as award of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, is in consonance with the law in this regard and the same needs no interference. 18. 18. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of consortium to appellant No 1- widow only and not awarded any compensation for loss of consortium 7 to appellants No.2 to 6, who are children and mother of the deceased As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the widow, children and parents of victim who died in a road accident are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium Thus, appellants No.2 to 3 being children and appellant No.4 mother of the deceased shall be entitle for parental consortium and filial consortium respectively in the sum of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 19. For the foregoing discussion, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation, which is as under. 20. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.9,750/- per month, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, and annual income would be Rs.1,17,000/- After adding 25% towards loss of future prospects, total income of deceased would be Rs.1,46,250/- Out of this amount, one- fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as deducted by the Claims Tribunal, and after deducting one-fourth, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,09,687.5/- Applying multiplier of 13, as applied by Claims Tribunal, total the loss of dependency would be Rs.14,25,937.5/- Besides this, appellant No. 1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium, appellant No.2 to 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and appellant No.4, mother of deceased, is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for loss of filial consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, 8 appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate. Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = Rs.1,17,000/- (Rs.9750x12) B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (Rs.1,17,000 x 25% = Rs. 1,46,250) C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (Rs.1,46,250 x 1/4= Rs.36,562.5) (Rs.1,46,250 – Rs.36,562.5 = Rs.1,09,687.5) D) Multiplier of 13 (Rs.1,09,687.5 x 13 = Rs.14,25,937.5/-) Rs.14,25,937.5/- Loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium to Claimants No. 1 & 4 (Rs.40,000 to each claimants) Rs.1,60,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.16,15,937.5/- 21. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs.16,15,937.50/- instead of Rs.8,74,375/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% 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. 9 22. 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 DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA