HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 23 of 2020 TILOCHAN versus TATA A.I.G. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Order on Board 20/03/2025 pwn Mr. Krishnkant Prajapati, Adv. on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for Resp. No. 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2019, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration of the pleadings made in the application and the submission made by learned counsel for appellant, I.A. No. 01/2019 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. Order passed separately. Signed and dated. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1 / 6 2025:CGHC:13247 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 23 of 202 0 • Tilochan S/o Pawansai Aged About 47 Years Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Vrindavan, Police Station And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/ Claimant versus 1. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Raipur, Office No. 403, Fourth Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Plot No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Ground, Raipur, Post Police Station, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Vikram Kumar Nishad S/o Bharat Prasad Nishad Aged About 28 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, Caste Kenwat, R/o Village Salka, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Vijay Kumar Nishad S/o Bharat Prasad Nishad Aged About 26 Years Caste Kenwat, Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Salka, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 20/03/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 10.05.2019 passed by Learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 50/2018, whereby learned Claims PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation in death case. 2. Fact of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 27.10.2017 at about 06:00 pm, his mother Smt. Dilaso was going to her house on foot from village Kotal and when she reached near Atal Chowk, Respondent No. 3/ driver of motor cycle bearing No. CG15-DE-3679 came driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently and hit the deceased Dilaso Bai, due to which she suffered grievous injuries over her head, face,ribs, hand and nose. She was then taken to Mission Hospital, Ambikapur and from where she was referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, where during treatment she died. 3. Appellant, son of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs. 25,35,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident she was an able bodied person doing the work of agricultural labourer and vegetable business, from which she used to earn a monthly income of Rs. 12,000/-. Non-applicant No. 2/ Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle and Non-applicant 3/ Respondent No. 3 is the driver. 4. Non-applicant 1/ Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company has denied the pleadings made in the application and in the reply it was further pleaded that the owner of the vehicle was driving the vehicle in violation of the conditions of insurance policy as Respondent No. 3 driver did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and pleaded to dismiss the claim filed against it. 5. Non-applicant No. 2 & 3 have filed reply and denied the pleadings made in the application. It is further pleaded that non-applicant No. 2/ driver had a 3 / 6 valid and effective driving licence to driver the vehicle as also valid permit and insurance policy and pleaded for dismissal of claim filed against them. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Smt. Dilaso died due to injuries suffered by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant 3. There was no breach of conditions of the insurance policy, contributory negligence was not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non- applicants jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation, primary responsibility of non-applicant No. 1 to satisfy the award, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 70,000/- as total compensation to be paid within two months from the date of passing of the award. 7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation of Rs. 70,000/- in which Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. He contended that though the deceased was mother of appellant, who is major son, was also an earning member of the family, deceased was a vegetable seller and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month and therefore learned Claims Tribunal ought to have calculated the amount of compensation as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent 1-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and further submits that the appellant is a major son and earning member of the family and therefore he cannot be held to be dependent upon her mother. Therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly considered this aspect and has awarded the amount of compensation towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium. The amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims 4 / 6 Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference of this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. Death of mother of appellant in a motor accident is not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 is the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing No. CG15- DE-3679 is also not in dispute as also the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon Insurance Company is also not disputed by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1. 11. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Sofar as the computation of award by applying multiplier system in a case where claimant is a major earning son is claiming compensation against death of his/her parents was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Birendra reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle and held that major married and earning son is having right to file application for compensation and Tribunal must consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal heirs are fully dependent on the deceased or not. Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the above principle in the case of Seema Ra ni and ors. vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. passed in Civil Appeal No. 2323/2025 dt. 11.02.2025. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal has held that appellant is her legal heir. His age is stated to be 47 years in the claim application and mentioned his profession as Agriculturist. He has not stated anywhere in the statement that he was dependent upon his mother, therefore, appellant cannot be said to be 5 / 6 dependent upon the deceased Smt. Dilaso, which in the light of the above decision is erroneous. 14. Undisputedly, the deceased Smt. Dilaso is the late mother of appellant. Though the appellant has pleaded the occupation of deceased mother to be a vegetable seller, however, the occupation of the deceased and her income to be Rs. 12,000/- per month is not proved by the appellant, by bringing cogent and acceptable piece of evidence. In the said facts of the case, the occupation of deceased can only be treated as a labourer for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. As the income of deceased and wages of labourer within the district Surajpur where the deceased was residing and working is also not proved, therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to take the wages fixed by the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Raipur for the period 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as the accident occurred in the year 2017. The monthly wages fixed by the Labour Commissioner for Class-C city is Rs. 7,800/- per month and therefore I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,800/- per month. 15. For the foregoing reasons, I propose to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants. 16. Income of deceased is reckoned as Rs. 7800/- per month ie. Rs. 93,600/-. After deducing 50% towards personal and living expenses of deceased, annual loss of dependency will come to Rs. 46,800/-. Looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 65 years, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 7, after applying the multiplier of 7 total loss of dependency will come to Rs. 3,27,600/- [Rs.46800x7]. Apart from the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellant will further be entitled 6 / 6 for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 17. Now the appellant/ claimant shall be entitle for total sum of Rs. 3,97,600/- [Rs.3,27,600+ Rs.40,000+ Rs.15,000+ Rs.15,000] as compensation instead of Rs. 70,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 18.In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn