1 / 7 2025:CGHC:22793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 19 47 of 2019 1. Smt. Pushpa Bai W/o Late Basant Dhruw Aged About 33 Years 2. Bhupendra S/o Late Basant Dhruw Aged About 14 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pushpa Bai 3. Nagesh S/o Late Basant Dhruw Aged About 12 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pushpa Bai 4. Ku. Hemlata D/o Late Basant Dhruw Aged About 9 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pushpa Bai All are R/o Ward No.7 Mohanadi, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Tarbahar, Near Masjid, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Mohd. Nishar S/o Mohd. Sarfuddin Ansari Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gahira, Post Jangalpur, Police Station Govindpur, District Dhanbadi, Jharkhand At Present Address B.S.C.P.L. Camp, Sindhupali, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.-04-JB-3974) 2. B.S.P.C.L. Infrastructure Limited House No. 12, Aishwarya Residency, G.E. Road, Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh At Present B.S.C.P.L. Camp, Sindhupali, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.-04-JB-3974) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office Rama Trade Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.-04-JB-3974), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Diksha Jaiswal, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal , Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. on behalf of Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Date: 2025.06.12 15:53:52 +0530 2 / 7 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 10/06/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 12.09.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 510/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 15,68,770/- as compensation in death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 03.03.2018, Basant Dhruw along with his friend Narottam was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG06P8756 coming from village Pithora to his village Mohndi, when he reached near Potapara Crossing, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of truck No. CG04JB3974 while driving the truck rashly and negligently, hit the motor cycle of Basant Dhruw and caused accident. In the said accident, Basant Dhruw and Narottam sustained serious injuries and at the time of treatment in the hospital, Basant Dhruw died. In connection with the above accident, a report was lodged in Police Station- Pithora, District- Mahasamund, based on which a case has been registered against the truck driver for alleged offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304- A of IPC. 3. Appellants who are widow and children of deceased Basant Dhruw, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of ₹ 24,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 35 years of age, was an able bodied person. He was doing the work of Mason, building construction work on contract and was earning ₹ 10,000/- per month to support his family. The applicants were dependent on the 3 / 7 deceased and due to his untimely death, they have been deprived of the income of the deceased and his love and affection. 4. Non-applicant 1 and 2 / Respondent No. 1 and 2- driver and owner of the truck filed their reply, denying the pleadings made in the application. It was further pleaded that the alleged accident did not happen because of negligent driving of non-applicant no. 1, rather the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motor cycle. On the date of accident, Non-applicant No. 1/ driver was possessing valid and effective license to drive the truck, as also there was valid and effective permit and fitness certificate. The truck was insured with non-applicant no. 3, and pleaded that they are not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the application and further stated that the alleged accident did not happen due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by non-applicant No. 1, but the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its driver. On the date of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving license and non-applicant No. 2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by driving the truck without permit, fitness certificate and registration. Owner of the motorcycle and the insurance company are also necessary parties in the case. The principle of contributory negligence is attracted in the case. Non-applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the compensation because there was breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Basant Dhruw died because of injuries suffered by him in the accident caused by a truck driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy 4 / 7 and contributory negligence were not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 15,68,770/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of application, held non-applicant No. 3/ Respondent No. 3 liable to satisfy the compensation awarded. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meagre. Tribunal has erred in adding 40% towards future prospects instead of 50% because on the date of accident and death deceased was aged about 39 years. She next contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of love and affection and further the rate of interest is awarded 6% instead of 12%. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal has considered that the appellants-claimants failed to prove the nature of employment and income of deceased, has taken note of the minimum waged fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and accordingly assessed the income of deceased as ₹ 7,930/- per month which does not call for any interference. On the date of accident, deceased was not in permanent employment and therefore Tribunal has rightly added 40% towards future prospects and further compensation is also awarded under the head of loss of consortium, therefore, appellants-claimants are not entitled for compensation under the head of love and affection. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of appeal. 5 / 7 10. Sofar as the first ground raised by learned counsel for appellants with respect to assessment of income of deceased as ₹ 7,930/- per month is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that the appellants failed to prove the nature of employment of deceased and his income. This finding of the Tribunal has not been controverted by the counsel for appellants by making submission that the finding with respect to nature of employment and income in any manner is erroneous and is contrary to the evidence available on record. Hence, the submission of learned counsel for appellants cannot be accepted that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as ₹ 7,930/- per month which is based on the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act and prevailing on the date of accident. Further, the deceased was not in permanent employment and therefore the second submission of the counsel for appellants that the Claims Tribunal erred in adding 40% instead of 50% towards future prospects is not sustainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 11. Similarly, the submission of learned counsel for appellants that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of love and affection is also not sustainable in view of the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 as when the amount of compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, the amount towards love and affection is not to be awarded. However, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium only to appellant No. 1/ widow of deceased and has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium to appellants No. 2 to 4 who are children of the deceased. In the 6 / 7 matter of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the children are also entitled for the loss of parental consortium. Accordingly, appellants No. 2 to 4 are also entitled for loss of consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% only considering entirety of the facts of the case, the accident is of the year 2018, therefore, keeping in mind the rate of interest prevailing on fixed deposit during that period, I find it appropriate to award rate of interest @ 7.5% p.a. instead of 6% p.a. It is ordered accordingly. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants, as under. 13. The monthly income of deceased is assessed by the Tribunal as ₹ 7,930/- per month ie., ₹ 95,160 per annum. Tribunal upon adding 40% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects, calculated total yearly income of deceased on the date of accident as ₹ 1,33,224/-. After deducting 1/4 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency was calculated as ₹ 99,918/- and upon applying multiplier of 15 to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 as the deceased was about 39 years of age on the date of accident, total loss of dependency was calculated as ₹ 14,98,770/- [₹ 99,918x15]. Tribunal further awarded ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Besides the amount of compensation on the abovesaid heads, the appellants-claimants No. 2 to 4/ children of deceased shall further be entitled for ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (supra). 7 / 7 14. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 16,88,770/- [₹14,98,770 + ₹40,000+ ₹40,000 + ₹40,000+ ₹40,000 + ₹15,000+ ₹15,000] instead of ₹15,68,770/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 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