1 2025:CGHC:36089 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2280 of 2019 1 - Sanjay Kumar Ram S/o Indradev Aged About 36 Years 2 - Himanshu Kumar S/o Sanjay Kumar Aged About 12 Years 3 - Sonu Kumar Prasad S/o Sanjay Kumar Aged About 10 Years 4 - Kumari Khushi D/o Sanjay Kumar Aged About 8 Years No.2 to 4 are Minors Through Legal Guardian Father Sanjay Kumar Ram Appellant No. 01, R/o Deepka Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 9, Thana Deepka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Rahmat Ansari S/o Pir Mohammad Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 998 K. Nair Mohalla-1 Korba, Thana City Kotwali, District Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Moh. Nijam Ansari S/o Rahman Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 998, Nair Mohalla,-1, Budhwari Bazar, Thana City Kotwali, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 – Branch Manager, Chola Mandalam M. S. General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Bypar Vihar Road, Behind Of Renu Duster Show Room, Thana Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ….Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Shalini Jangade, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.L. Singraul, Advocate For Respondent No.1 and 2 : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shrishti Uopadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.12 11:17:29 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 25/07/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 19.07.2019 passed in Claim Case No.942/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.17,43,440/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- under different heads against the death of Usha Devi, who died in a road accident, pleading therein that on 08.10.2018, Usha Devi was traveling as a pillion on a motorcycle driven by her brother, Sanjeet Kumar, from Deepika to Korba. At approximately 12:15 PM, upon reaching Kusmunda Main Road, ta trailer bearing registration No. C.G.-13-LA-1573 (hereinafter referred as “offending vehicle”), driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1, collided with motorcycle. As a result of accident, Usha Devi sustained severe injuries to her chest, hand, leg, and other parts of her body, and succumbed to injuries on the spot. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased Usha Devi was 35 years old able bodied person, was doing work of stitching and embroidery, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 3 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 did not appear and they were proceeded ex- parte. Respondent No.3/Insurance company filed its reply to the application resisting the claim. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motor cycle. Non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy without any valid permit. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.17,43,440/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to satisfy the award. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. Income of the deceased is assessed on lower side overlooking the nature of occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application. Deceased on the date of accident was doing the work of stitching and embroidery and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He also contended that amount of compensation awarded on other conventional heads is less. He prays for suitable enhancement of amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants. He submits that in absence of proof of nature of occupation and income of the deceased, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the deceased on notional basis. He submits that the amount of compensation as 4 awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed i record. 8. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to less assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, claimants have pleaded that deceased was doing the work of stitching and embroidery and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, there is no clinching and admissible evidence to prove the said pleadings. In absence of evidence with regard to the occupation and income of the deceased, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis taking note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. The income as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal to be of Rs.8,400/- is according to the wages fixed by the competent authority for the period from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 of B Zone area for unskilled labour, which does not call for any interference. 9. So far as the second grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to award proper compensation towards other conventional heads is concerned, perusal of the impugned award would show that learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards mental pain and agony, however, no amount of compensation is awarded for loss of consortium to the appellants. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 5 Pranay Sethi (supra), has specified and quantified the amount of compensation to be awarded under the head loss of estate and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium in a death case. Learned Claims Tribunal has though awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, however, failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium to the appellants/claimants. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/ widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. Appellant No.1 being widower and appellants No.2 to 4 being children are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium and parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly. The appellants are not entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- each) awarded under the head of mental pain and agony and for loss of love and affection as it subsumes under the head of loss of consortium 11. There is no dispute with respect to addition of 40% towards future prospects in the income of the deceased, deduction of 1/4 towards personal living expenses and application of multiplier of 16 as they are in consonance with the decision in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 6 12. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 8,400 x 12 = 1,00,800.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 1,00,800.00 + 40,320.00 = 1,41,120.00 3. 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,41,120.00 – 35,280.00 = 1,05,840.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 16 : 1,02,060 x 16 = 16,93,400.00 5. For loss of spousal and parental to the appellants No.1 to 4 of Rs.40,000/- each (Rs.40,000 x 4) : 1,60,000.00 6. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 7. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 Grand Total : 18,83,440.00 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,83,440.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram