1 2025:CGHC:933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 156 of 2020 1. Smt. Muni Bai W/o Late Vishwanath@ Vishnath Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village- Jora Tarai Navapara, Police Station- Narayanpur, Tahsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Anjani D/o Late Vishwanath @ Vishnath Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Mother And Guardian Smt. Muni Bai, Resident Of Village- Jora Tarai Navapara, Police Station- Narayanpur, Tahsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Ranjeet S/o Late Vishwanath @ Vishnath Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Mother And Guardian Smt. Muni Bai, Resident Of Village- Jora Tarai Navapara, Police Station- Narayanpur, Tahsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Sanjeet S/o Late Vishwanath @ Vishnath Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Mother And Guardian Smt. Muni Bai, Resident Of Village- Jora Tarai Navapara, Police Station- Narayanpur, Tahsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5. Sankar S/o Late Vishwanath Vishnath Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Mother And Guardian Smt. Muni Bai, Resident Of Village- Jora Tarai Navapara, Police Station- Narayanpur, Tahsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 6. Jirmayit W/o Jhulan Aged About 63 Years Resident Of Village- Jora Tarai Navapara, Police Station- Narayanpur, Tahsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Anita Rajak W/o Late Shrinath Rajak Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village- Dadgaon, Post- Keradeh, Tahsil And Police Station- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 2. Branch Manager Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd., Paninsuka Corporate Park, Nikolash Piraman Tower, 9th Floor Ganpat Rao Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None, though served. For Respondents No. 2 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 07/01/2025 1. The Claimants-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') for enhancement of the award, challenging the impugned award dated 22.01.2019 passed in MACT No. 16/2016 by the learned Additional Motor Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.), whereby the Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in part and awarded a total sum of Rs.2,52,500/- as compensation on account of the death of Vishwanath @ Vishnath/deceased. 2. As per the facts described in the claim case, on 11.08.2013, the deceased was going to Chariadand from Keradih with late Shrinath on Motor Cycle bearing registration No. CG-14-MA-6451 and when they were near Mayali, one unknown truck coming from the opposite side at a high speed dashed the motorcycle and both persons died on the spot. The age of the victim was 38 years at the time of the accident and he was working as a tailor and his monthly income was Rs. 8,000/- p.m. Claimant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased; claimants No. 2 to 5 are the children of deceased and claimant No. 6 3 is the mother of deceased. The Insurance Company filed a reply and denied the contents of the application. The tribunal considered the material available on record and assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and applied the multiplier of 15 to it. The tribunal deducted ¼ as personal expenses and assessed total compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,05,000/- and deducted 50% of the award amount towards contributory negligence and finally awarded Rs. 2,52,500/- to the claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the deceased was a pillion rider, therefore, the tribunal committed an error of law by deducting 50% of the award amount under the head of contributory negligence. He further submits that the present is a case of composite negligence. He contends that the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at the lower side and according to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'Act of 1948'), the minimum wage of a laborer in the year 2013 was about Rs. 5,000/- p.m. He further contends that the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and loss of consortium to children and mother. He prays that the quantum of compensation is not in accordance with law and deserves to be suitably enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2-Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal after considering the entire material available on record passed the award which is just and proper. He contends that the tribunal applied the correct multiplier of 15; assessed the monthly income of the deceased according to evidence led by the parties and 4 deducted 50% towards contributory negligence. He argues that there was a head-on-collision between the motor-cycle and an unknown truck and both the deceased were negligent while driving the vehicle. He prays that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 6. According to the Act of 1948, the minimum wage of a laborer prevailing in 2013 was about Rs. 4,942/- p.m. whereas the tribunal has assessed it to be Rs. 3,000/- p.m. which is on the lower side. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is increased to Rs. 4,942/-, rounded off to Rs. 5,000/- p.m. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 and deducted ¼ of annual income as personal expenses. The Tribunal has only awarded the loss of spousal consortium to the wife/appellant No. 1 and has not awarded any sum with respect to the loss of parental consortium, therefore, this Court proposes to re-compute the compensation by taking into account the number of children i.e. four. As appellants No. 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased and appellant No. 6 is the mother of the deceased, hence, they are entitled to be awarded Rs. 40,000/- each towards the loss of parental consortium. Thus, a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- is assessed under the aforesaid head. 7. On a perusal of the records, it transpires that the deceased was the pillion rider at the time of the incident and late Shrinath was driving the motorcycle and it is crystal clear from the evidence that the deceased did not drive the vehicle at the time of the incident. 5 8. As far as contributory negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has stated that there were a total of two passengers riding on the motorcycle in which the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider. This Court has found that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was negligent; therefore, the deceased does not come under the head of contributory negligence as he was only the pillion rider. When a person suffers injury on account of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said to be composite negligence. Hence in the present case, the deceased is entitled to get full compensation under the head of composite negligence rather than contributory negligence. Thus, the tribunal has committed an error of law in deducting 50% of the award amount under the head of contributory negligence. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, this Court is re-computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Yearly income of the deceased Rs. 60,000/- (@ Rs. 5,000 p.m.) 2. Future prospects @ 40% Rs. 24,000/- 3. Yearly income (including future prospects) Rs. 84,000/- 4. Total yearly income after deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses Rs. 63,000/- 5. Multiplier of 15 applied to Total yearly income (Rs. 63,000 x 15) Rs. 9,45,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 8. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,40,000/- 6 (six dependents) Total compensation Rs. 12,15,000/- 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.2,52,500/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,15,000/-. Hence, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to an additional amount of Rs.9,62,500/-. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 11. Further, the respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal, till its realization. The rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya