1 2025:CGHC:32224 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2168 of 2019 1 - Smt. Kumari Bai Kurre Wd/o Late Kacharuram, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sankra, Post Bhothli, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.............Claimant 2 - Sundarlal Kurre S/o Late Kacharuram, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sankra, Post Bhothli, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.............Claimant ... Appellants Versus 1 - Takeshwar Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Mohanlal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Thuha, Post Maroud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner-Cum- Driver Of Offending Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.-05-R- 2742)..............Non-Applicant 2 - Branch Manager, United Insurance Company Limited, Sinha Complex Bathena Chowk Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.-05-R-2742)..............Non-Applicant ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Prahlad Shirwas, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Patanker, Advocate along with Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 11/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 24.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 34/2018. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 03.01.2018, when Kachruram Kurre (since deceased) was going towards Dhamtari from Village Sankara on his bicycle, when he reached near Maruti Suzuki Showroom at NH. 30, one vehicle bearing registration no. CG 05 R 2742 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Kachruram Kurre and caused accident. In the said accident, Kachruram Kurre suffered serious injuries, he was taken to hospital. During treatment, he succumbed to his injuries. Subsequent to the said accident, FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 62/2018 at Police Station - Arjuni, District – Dhamtari for the offence punishable under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The appellants/claimants in the claim application have pleaded that the deceased was aged about 55 years, was doing the work of Agricultural Labourer and earning Rs. 250/- per day. Due to death of the deceased, the claimants are facing financial crises, claimed Rs. 12,76,000/- as compensation from the non-applicants along with an interest of 9% per annum. 4. The Non-Applicant No. 1 submitted reply to the claim application pleading that the accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased. On the date of accident, the Non-applicant No. 1 was possessing valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 2. Hence, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation if any, would be upon the Non-applicant No. 2. 5. The Non-Applicant No. 2/Insurance Company opposing the pleadings made in the claim application submitted its reply pleading that on the 3 date of accident, the Non-Applicant No. 1 was not possessing a valid and effective driving license and thus, the offending vehicle was plied by the Non-Applicant No. 1 in breach of conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, the Non-Applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the award of compensation. 6. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record, held that death of deceased was on account of motor accidental injuries suffered by him due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. On the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured by the Non-applicant No. 2, fastened the liability upon Non-Applicant No. 2 to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,08,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation assessing the income of the deceased as only Rs. 4,500/- per month overlooking the date of accident and the wages prevailing within the area in which the deceased was residing. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the age of the deceased a 60 years disbelieving the pleadings made in the claim application of 50 years. The amount of compensation awarded on other heads is also on lower side, hence, the amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence and facts available in record has awarded just and proper amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. He lastly contended that that the claimants have 4 not proved by cogent and admissible piece of evidence, income of the deceased and further, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing age of the deceased as 60 years based on the post-mortem report (Ex. P/10) in absence of document in record showing age of the deceased. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 10.The motor accidental death of the deceased and also the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation fastened upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance is not in dispute. 11.The date of accident is 03.01.2018. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased aged about 60 years only Rs. 4,500/- per month. It cannot be expected from the claimants to maintain the records or to produce the wage/salary certificate in evidence. It was pleaded that the deceased was doing the work of Labourer and therefore, in absence of any clinching evidence with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the wages keeping in mind the factors like the price index, cost of living, wage structure and could have also taken the help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As there is no clinching evidence, with regard to the wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place on which, the deceased was residing, therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of the deceased keeping in mind the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. According to the notification issued by the competent authority, the minimum-wages fixed for Unskilled Labourer during the period of accident was Rs. 7,800/- per month. Pleadings of the claimants in the 5 claim application with regard to the income of the deceased is Rs. 250/- per day and therefore, I find it appropriate to accept the income as pleaded in the claim application. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 7,500/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12.So far as the submission of the counsel for the applicant with regard to the application of multiplier is concerned, the claimants failed to produce any document to prove the age of the deceased as mentioned in the claim application and therefore, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal assessing the age of the deceased based on the post-mortem report (Ex. P/10) to be of 60 years and applying the multiplier of 9 to the assessed income which is to the tune of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121. 13.However, the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in applying deduction of ½ (half) towards the personal and living expenses. According to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), where the dependents of the deceased are between 2 to 3, there shall be a deduction of 1/3rd in the assessed income of the deceased for computing the amount of compensation. Therefore, I find it appropriate to apply deduction of 1/3rd from the assessed income of the deceased for computing the compensation towards loss of dependency. It is ordered accordingly. 14.The learned Claims Tribunal has further not awarded future prospects to the applicants/claimants as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 6 reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. As the deceased was in between age of 50 to 60 years, therefore, in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra), there shall be addition of 10% of the assessed income towards the future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 15.The learned Claims Tribunal has further not awarded loss of consortium to the Applicant/Claimant No. 2 and Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate, but have awarded only Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- to the Applicant/Claimant No. 1 towards the loss of spousal consortium. According to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and further, according to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC , Claimant No. 2 will also be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 16. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 17. Accordingly, monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,500/-, since at the time of death, the deceased was 60 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 10% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs. 8250/- (7500 + 750). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.99,000/- (8250 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the 7 deceased and after deducting 1/3rd of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 66,000/- (99,000 – 33,000). By applying multiplier of 9, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,94,000/- (66,000 x 9). Besides this, Appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards spousal and parental consortium. Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 18. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.7,04,000/- (5,94,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 19. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 & 2 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 20. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 21. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey