1 2025:CGHC:34547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1990 of 2019 1. Smt. Leelawati, Wd/o Late Krishan Kumar Sahu, Aged About 37 Years, Caste Teli, R/o Village Talwapara, Ward No.01, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Maya Sahu, D/o Late Krishna Kumar Sahu, Aged About 21 Years, Caste Teli, R/o Village Talwapara, Ward No.01, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 3. Arvind Kumar, S/o Late Krishna Kumar Sahu, Aged About 19 Years, Caste Teli, R/o Village Talwapara, Ward No.01, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 4. Ku. Radha Sahu, D/o Late Krishna Kumar Sahu, Aged About 16 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Leelawati, Caste Teli, R/o Village Talwapara, Ward No.01, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 5. Ravindra Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Krishna Kumar Sahu, Aged About 12 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Leelawati, Caste Teli, R/o Village Talwapara, Ward No.01, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Rampratap Sahu, S/o Late Rampyare, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Sonpur (Dabripara), Outpost Basdei, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle). 2. Rajendra Teli, S/o Vishwanath Teli, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Sonpur (Dabripara), Ouppost Basdei, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle). 3. Branch Manager, Iffico Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 84 Narbada Road, Jabalpur, Post, Police Station Jabalpur, District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) 2 For Appellants : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, counsel appears along with Ms. Shreejal Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 21/07/2025 1. The appellant/claimants have filed this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 23.08.2019 passed by the Court of Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Surajpur, Place Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.114/2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application seeking compensation filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”), awarded Rs.7,78,750/- as total compensation. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. Date of accident 27.03.2018, death of Krishna Kumar Sahu aged about 42 years (as per post mortem report) and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non-applicant No.3/insurance company is not in dispute. 3. For the foregoing reason, this Court is not entering into the factual aspect of the case and only considering the submission made by the counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.03.2018, the deceased Krishna Kumar Sahu was coming to Sonpur, Dabripara on an auto bearing Registration No.CG-29-A-4326 driven by the non applicant No.1 and when they reached Village Kurridih Main Road, the non applicant No.1 3 driving the auto rashly and negligently dashed the same on a pillar, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe injuries on his head,back, waist, chest etc. He was admitted to Hospital at Village Banja and during treatment he died, thereafter a case was registered against the non applicant No.1 before the concerned police station. Subsequently, a claim case was filed by the family of the deceased i.e. claimants on the ground that prior to the incident, the deceased was working as porter (palledar) and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The claim case of the claimants was partly allowed, awarded Rs.7,78,750/- in favour of the claimants with 9% interest per annum till its realization, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has correctly assessed the age of the deceased as 42 years, the nature of occupation as labourer, however, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month only. He contended that the date of accident is stated 27.03.2018, and even if, the deceased is to be treated as labourer, his income would be much more, than what is assessed by the Claims Tribunal. The learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the wage structure prevailing within the area of which the deceased was resident of. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of compensation under loss of parental consortium to the claimants No.2 to 5 (children of deceased). 6. Learned counsel for the respective respondents would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation computed and awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case and does not call for any interference. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case carefully. 8. Perusal of the record would show that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased based on the age mentioned in the post mortem report as 42 years. The Claims Tribunal has considered the occupation of the deceased as labourer, however, assessed the income as Rs.4,500/- per month. In the record of claim case, there is no suggestive piece of evidence of the wage structure prevailing within the area, and therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of Minimum Wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. For the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018, the minimum wages fixed for unskilled labourer of C-Zone area is Rs.7,930/- per month, and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased as Rs.7,930/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 9. The learned Claims Tribunal justified in applying the deduction of 1/4th, adding 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects and applying the multiplier of 14, which is to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimant No.1, which is also in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). However, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to award the loss of consortium to the claimants No.2 to 5, the children as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and 5 others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. The claimants No.2 to 5 are also entitled for the loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. 10.For the foregoing discussion, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation, which is as under:- Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = Rs.95,160/- (Rs.7930x12) B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (Rs.95,160 x 25% = Rs. 1,18,950) C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (Rs.1,18,950 x 1/4= Rs.29,737.5; Rs.1,18,950 – Rs.29,737.5 = Rs.89,212.5) D) Multiplier of 14 Rs.89,212.5 x 14 = Rs.12,48,975/- Rs.12,48,975/- Loss of parental consortium to claimants No.2 to 5 (Rs.40,000 to each claimants) (40,000 x4) Rs.1,60,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.14,38,975/- 11. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs.14,38,975/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA