-1- 2025:CGHC:35396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2153 of 2019 1 - Anju Kashyap Wd/o Late Arun Kumar Kashyap Aged About 27 Years 2 - Geetansh Kashyap S/o Late Arun Kumar Kashyap Aged About 5 Years 3 - Rajkumari Kashyap Wd/o Late Panchram Kashyap Aged About 63 Years 4 - Amit Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Pancharam Kashyap Aged About 30 Years 5 - Shivkumar Kashyap S/o Late Panchram Kashyap Aged About 27 Years Applicant No.2 is minor through the mother (natural guardian) Appellant No.1 Anju Kashyap W/d of Late Arun Kumar Kashyap. All R/o Village - Limha (Andhiyaripara), Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Lavkush Patel S/o Chitrakoti Prasad Patel Aged About 21 Years R/o Village And Post Nakwel, Ward No. 13, Police Station Churhat Tahsil And District Sidhi (Madhya Pradesh), At Present Tata Motor, Beltara, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Trailer No. C.G. 10 R 1153) 2 - Dinesh Singh S/o Late Harinath Singh Aged About 53 Years Caste - Kahatriya, R/o M.I. Yadunandan, Nagar, Tifra, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Trailer No. C.G. 10 R 1153) 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Manager, Permanent Address 2nd Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.08 18:11:49 +0530 -2- Floor, Gurukripa Towers, Near Ambe Auto Mobiles, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Trailer No. C.G. 10 R 1153) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 23/07/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Fifth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (CG) vide award dated 17th July 2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.299 of 2018. 3. Date of accident and death of Arun Kumar Kashyap due to motor accidental injury suffered by him as also liability to satisfy the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is not in dispute and therefore this Court is not discussing the facts of case in detail. The appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation. Income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.6000/- per month only which in the fact of case is on lower side. He also contended that -3- amount of compensation under head of ‘loss of consortium’ is also on lower side. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ to all the appellants/claimants but has awarded loss of consortium to appellant/claimant No.1 only. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that amount of compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal, in the facts of the case, is just and proper. Claimants have failed to prove nature of occupation as also income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the claim case. 7. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants with regard to assessment of income as Rs.6000/- per month by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, date of accident is 25.12.2017. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded the occupation of deceased to be engaged in catering work and his income to be Rs.30,000 to Rs.35,000 per month. True it is that claimants have failed to prove income of deceased by placing admissible evidence, however, in absence of admissible evidence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased considering the other factors like cost of living, price index, wage structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. 8. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in -4- absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for ‘unskilled labourer’ minimum wage is fixed as Rs.8000/- per month. Hence, looking to the date of accident i.e. 25.12.2017, income of deceased is assessed as Rs.8000/- per month instead of Rs.6000/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal, looking to the age of the deceased on the date of accident to be 35 years, has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects. Looking to the number of dependents, as such, learned Claims Tribunal has also rightly made deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of deceased and applied multiplier of 16, which is to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. However, learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- each under ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’. 10. Award under the head of loss of consortium has been quantified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further types of consortium is explained in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 and it is held that husband/spouse will be entitled for loss of ‘spousal consortium’, children will be entitled for loss of ‘parental consortium’ and parents will be entitled for loss of ‘filial consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- -5- each. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- only to appellant/claimant No.1 towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’. In the case at hand claimant No.2 is child and claimant No.3 is the widow mother of deceased- Arun Kumar Kashyap, therefore, they are also entitled for grant of compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of parental consortium’ and ‘loss of filial consortium’ respectively. Claimants are also entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- each under the head ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% in every three years and, therefore, compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head of ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’ to claimants No. 1 to 3 has to be enhanced by 10% and it will be Rs.16,500/-, Rs.16,500/- and Rs.1,32,000/- (44,000 x 3) respectively. 12. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 8000 x 12 = 96000 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40 % (96000 x 40% =38400) 96000+ 38400 = 1,34,400 (C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (1,34,400 x 1/3= 44800) 1,34,400 - 44800 =89,600/- : Rs. 14,33,600 -6- (D) Multiplier of 16 89,600 x 16= 14,33,600 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 16,500 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 16,500 4. Spousal Consortium to claimant No.1 (wife) of Rs.44,000/- (40,000 x 10 % =44,000) : (+) Rs. 44,000 5. Parental consortium to claimant No. 2 (child) of 44,000/- (40,000 x 10 % =44,000) : (+) Rs. 44,000 6. Filial consortium to claimant No. 3 (mother) of Rs.44,000/- (40,000 x 10 % =44,000) : (+) Rs. 44,000 Total compensation : Rs. 15,98,600 13. Now the appellants /claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 15,98,600/- instead of Rs.11,35,200/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 14. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which is now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen