-1- 2025:CGHC:26794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 30 of 2019 Branch Manager The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Paras Complex Gurudwara Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh. (Res. No.3), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh … Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Kavita Jain Wd/o Late Chand Kumar Jain Aged About 49 2 - Pravesh Jain S/o Late Chand Kumar Jain Aged About 30 Years 3 - Kalpesh Jain S/o Late Chand Kumar Jain Aged About 28 Years All R/o Kapda Market, Khursipar, Bhilai Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimants) 4 - Shankar Nayak S/o Durbal Nayak Aged About 31 Years R/o Shivaji Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai District - Durg Chhattisgarh.---(Driver) 5 - Top Singh Verma S/o Ganpat Verma R/o Village Parasbod, Tahsil Saja, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh.---(Owner) ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Resp. No.4 & 5 : None appears _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.04 10:55:50 +0530 -2- 23/06/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, case is heard finally. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by the appellant/Insurance company challenging the award dated 27.07.2018 passed by learned Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G) in Claim Case No.87 of 2017. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before learned Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Durg pleading therein that on 08.06.2016 at 8.30 p.m., when Chandkumar Jain was going on his bicycle, respondent No. 4/non-applicant No.1 Shankar Nayak, driving his motorcycle No. CG 25-3229 rashly and negligently, dashed Chandkumar Jain from behind due to which he sustained serious head injuries. He was taken to Hospital for treatment however during treatment he died on 13.06.2016. At the time of accident, the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from the business of sacks and was taking care of his family. Respondents/claimants prayed for total compensation of Rs. 18,75,000/- under various heads. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 by filing their written statement have denied almost all the pleadings made in the claim application and stated that non-applicant No.1 has not caused any accident and a false case has been registered against him. The said vehicle is insured with non- applicant No.3 and therefore, non-applicant No.3/Insurance company -3- would be liable to pay amount of compensation, if any. 5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company in its written statement pleaded that copy of insurance policy is not provided, in absence of verification, insurance of offending vehicle is denied. In case of breach of conditions of insurance policy, non-applicant No.3 would not be liable to pay amount of compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Chandkumar Jain sustained grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of the conditions of insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants, computed and awarded total compensation of 14,43,148/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that this appeal is filed challenging the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal on the ground that learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month without there being any proof with regard to nature of occupation and income of deceased. He contended that in the above facts of case where the claimants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income then learned Tribunal ought to have assessed income of deceased on notional basis treating him to be labourer and even if minimum wages is taken into consideration, it will be much less than what is assessed by learned Tribunal. He further submits that learned Tribunal has erroneously -4- assessed the age of deceased as 50 years overlooking the postmortem report of the deceased wherein his age is mentioned as 56 years. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, however, he fairly submits that the claimants have failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased by clinching admissible piece of evidence. Relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 he further submits that though learned Claims Tribunal as rightly assessed age of the deceased to be 50 years looking to the age as mentioned in the medical prescriptions and documents, however, learned Claims Tribunal erred in adding only 10% of assessed income of deceased instead of 25%. He next contended that learned Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation under the head- ‘loss of consortium’ to respondents No. 2 & 3/claimants who are sons of deceased. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of Claims Tribunal. 10. So as to appreciate the submission of learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that there is no evidence to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased is concerned, claimants have examined Kalpesh as AW1 who is son of deceased and further examined Gurujit Singh as AW2 who is stated to be witness to the incident. Claimant except the self serving statement of AW-1 (son of -5- deceased) and the pleading made in the claim application have not brought on record any evidence to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased on notionally, considering the factors like cost of living, price index, wage rates structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. The date of accident is 08.06.2016. Deceased was resident of Durg city and in the nearby city Bhilai, Bhilai Steel Plant is running which is a Public Sector Undertaking Company. Considering the fact that deceased was resident of industrial city, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month for ‘unskilled labourer’. It is ordered accordingly. 12. So far as second ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing age of deceased as 50 years instead of 56 years is concerned, true it is that in the postmortem report, age of deceased is mentioned as 56 years, however, in all the medical prescriptions and documents prior to death of deceased, his name is mentioned as Chandkumar Jain, aged 50 years. In the postmortem report, there is no mention of procedure drawn for assessing age of deceased. As no procedure is mentioned to have been drawn for assessing age of deceased in postmortem report, age of the deceased mentioned in postmortem report as 56 years only is not sustainable because it is -6- mentioned only looking to physical appearance of body and not by adopting any scientific method and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed age of the deceased as 50 years considering the other medical documents available on record. 13. So far as the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants that learned Claims Tribunal added only 10% of the assessed income towards future prospects instead of 25% is concerned, as the deceased on the date of accident is held to be 50 years of age, therefore ,in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), there shall be addition of 25% towards future prospects of deceased. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of spousal consortium' to respondent No. 1/claimant/wife and no amount of compensation under ‘loss of consortium’ is awarded to respondents No 2 & 3/claimants, sons of deceased. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, children of deceased are held entitled for loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. Claimants will further be entitled for award of Rs.57,896/- towards medical expenses as ordered by learned Claims Tribunal. The claimants shall be awarded just and fair compensation. 15. In the aforementioned facts of the case, if the compensation is re- -7- computed, it will be as under :- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 7000 x 12 =84000 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 25% (84000 x 25% =21000) 84000 + 21000 = 1,05,000 (C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (1,05,000 x 1/3 =35000) 105000 - 35000 = 70000 (D) Multiplier of 13 70000 x 13 = 9,10,000 Rs. 9,10,000 2. Medical expenses : (+) Rs. 57,896 3. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 5. Loss of spousal consortium to respondent/claimant No.1/wife : (+) Rs. 40,000 6. Loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to respondents/ claimants No. 2 & 3 : (+) Rs. 80,000 Total compensation : Rs. 11,17,896 16. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,43,148/-. Quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is put to challenge in this appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company. There is no appeal/cross-appeal filed by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 17. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in absence of any appeal filed -8- by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal cannot be enhanced in the appeal filed by Insurance Company. 18. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find that the compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is in excess than what for the claimants are entitled and hence I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award. Appeal being sans merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen