1 / 7 2025:CGHC:30028 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2001 of 2019 1. Smt. Fulmati Gendale W/o Late Laxmi Narayan Gendale Aged About 32 Year 2. Sunder Gendale S/o Late Sitaram Gendale Aged About 60 Years 3. Smt. Chanda Gendale W/o Sunder Gendale Aged About 57 Years 4. Raj Goyal Gendale S/o Late Laxmi Gendale Aged About 18 Years 5. Kumari Nargish D/o Late Laxmi Narayan Gendale Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Fulmati Gendale, 6. Sagar Gendale S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Gandale Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Fulmati Gendale, 7. Lacki S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Gendale Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Fulmati Gendale, 8. Kumari Dhannu D/o Late Laxmi Narayan Gendale Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Fulmati Gendale All are R/o Village Dholagi Post Office Nawadih, Thana And Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Hall Mukam Janakpur Road Takhatpur Thana And Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Bal Krishna Tiwari S/o Devi Prasad Tiwari Aged About 22 Years R/o School Chowk Shardha, Post Office Shardha, Thana And Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.......(Driver of Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. 28/E/ 0511) 2. Suresh Kumar Agrawal S/o Nathmal Agrawal R/o Ward No. 03, Collage Para, Nanawagaon Vencate, Thana And Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.......(Owner of Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. 28/E/ 0511) 3. Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company, Regional Manager, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company, 2nd Floor Shop No. 205, M. M. Silver Plaza Raipur, In Fornt Of Udyog Bhawan Raipur Near By Mining Office Ring Road No. 01, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Respondent No. 03 Correct Address, Through Branch Manager, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company, 1st Floor Galaxy Heights, I. C. I. C. I. Near Bank Byapar Vihar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 03/07/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 09.08.2019 passed by Learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 550/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 13,50,240/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 23.05.2018 Laxminarayan Gendle was returning to his native village Dholgi on his bicycle in the evening after selling firewood. As soon as he reached near Omkar Khatri Farm House, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of motor cycle number CG 28 E 0511 (henceforth “offending motorcycle”) while driving his vehicle rashly and negligently coming from the opposite direction hit Laxminarayan Gendle and caused an accident. In the said accident, Laxminarayan Gendle received serious and fatal injuries on his head, hands, legs and other parts of the body. He was taken to Community Health Centre, Lormi for treatment, where he died during treatment. A report of the accident was lodged in Police Station Lormi, District-Mungeli. (C.G.) based on which Crime No. 203/2018 was registered against non-applicant No.1 for alleged offences under Section 304 (A) IPC. 3 / 7 3. Appellants, who are widow, children and parents of deceased Laxminarayan Gendle, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 48,14,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 34 years of age, was an able bodied person. Before the accident he was doing the work of selling firewood and was earning ₹ 11,000/- per month to support himself and his family. 4. Respondent No. 1/ Non-applicant No. 1 -driver of the offending motorcycle submitted his reply to the claim application, while denying adverse pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that motorcycle was not involved in alleged accident against which a crime has been registered on fabricated and false grounds. The said vehicle is insured with non-applicant No.3- insurance company. Thus, if there is any liability to pay the compensation amount, it would be of non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 5. Respondent No. 2/ Non-applicant No. 2 -owner of the offending motorcycle submitted its reply to the claim application, denying adverse pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was possessed with a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Deceased Laxminarayan Gandle, while driving the bicycle carelessly, had met with an accident by colliding with an unknown vehicle due to his own mistake. 6. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased himself fell while riding the cycle, no accident has occurred with the alleged motorcycle. Non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive a motor cycle on the date of accident, therefore, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. 4 / 7 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Laxminarayan Gendle died due to injuries suffered in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending motorcycle driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 13,50,240/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application and fastened primary liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance company. 8. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants submits that the offending motorcycle was insured with Respondent No. 3, Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability jointly and severally upon non-applicants. Non-applicant No. 3 being insurer of the offending motorcycle having first liability to satisfy the award. Hence, this appeal be heard on motion stage itself. He would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation assessing less monthly income of deceased. He contended that the Claims Tribunal has not considered the pleadings with regard to occupation of deceased and his income in a proper manner and has assessed only ₹ 6,000/- per month instead of ₹ 12,000/- as pleaded. He next contended that the compensation awarded on other conventional heads is on lower side. Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation towards loss of consortium to all claimants except appellant no. 1, widow of deceased. The other claimants are parents and children, hence, they are also entitled for the award of compensation under the head of loss of filial consortium and parental consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 5 / 7 9. Mr. Pravesh Sahu, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellants- claimants with regard to liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon it. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence available on record has awarded just amount of compensation, which does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has made two fold submissions; first, that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as ₹ 6000/- per month only instead of 12,000/- as pleaded and stated by the claimants in their evidence. Perusal of record would show that except the pleading and self serving statement of the claimants, no other documents is submitted in evidence to prove that the deceased was doing business of sell of firewood. In the aforementioned facts of the case in absence of evidence with regard to nature of occupation, Claims Tribunal has correctly decided to assess the income of deceased on notional basis. For assessing the income on notional basis, factors like date of accident, age of deceased, wage structure, price index etc. As there is no evidence to show the wage rate prevailing in the area in which the deceased was a resident of, and therefore I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased taking help of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The minimum wages prevailing for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 and 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019, fixed for the unskilled labourer, is shown as ₹ 8,140/- per month. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased as ₹ 8,140 per month treating him to be unskilled labourer. 6 / 7 12. In the case at hand, deceased on the date of accident was aged about 35 years as held by Claims Tribunal based on the documents available before it. Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation has rightly applied addition of 40% towards future prospects, deduction of 1/5 and multiplier of 16, which are in the tune of decision of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The award of compensation on other conventional heads was considered by the National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and held that the claimants in death cases are entitled for ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹ 15,000 towards loss of estate. Types of consortium has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra), wherein it is held that the widow is entitled for loss of spousal consortium and children and parents are entitled for loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium respectively. Tribunal while computing the award of compensation has only awarded ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to claimant No. 1 being widow of deceased only. Claimants No. 2 & 3 are parents of deceased and claimants No. 4 to 8 are children of deceased, therefore, they are also entitled for loss of filial consortium and parental consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each, respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 97,680/- (₹ 8140x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 97,680 x 140% = ₹ 1,36,452) • Deduction of 1/5 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,36,452 x 1/5= ₹ 27,350); ₹ 1,36,452 - ₹ 27,350 = ₹ 1,09,102/- • Multiplier of 16 ₹ 17,45,632/- 7 / 7 ₹ 1,09,102 x 16 = ₹ 17,45,632/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 ₹ 40,000/- Loss of filial consortium to Appellants No. 2 & 3 (₹ 40,000 each) ₹ 80,000/- Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 4 to 8 (₹ 40,000 each) ₹ 2,00,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 15,000/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 19,95,632/- 14. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 19,95,632/- instead of ₹ 13,50,240/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% 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. 15. 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 pwn