1 2025:CGHC:16044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 207 of 2019 Judgment Reserved on : 06.02.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 04.04.2025 1 - Smt. Pushpa Dahariya Wd/o Late Santosh Dahariya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Prabhatola ,Post- Podi, Police Station- Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Ravi Dahariya S/o Late Santosh Dahariya, Aged About 14 Years, Minor Represented Through his Natural Gurdian /mother Smt. Pushpa Dahariya R/o Village- Prabhatola ,Post- Podi, Police Station- Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Amit Dahariya S/o Late Santosh Dahariya, Aged About 12 Years, Minor Represented Through his Natural Gurdian /mother Smt. Pushpa Dahariya R/o Village Prabhatola ,Post- Podi, Police Station- Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Aditya Dahariya, S/o Late Santosh Dahriya, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Represented Through his Natural Gurdian /mother Smt. Pushpa Dahariya R/o Village Prabhatola ,Post- Podi, Police Station- Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Nadan Dahariya, Wd/o Late Dukalu Dahariya, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Prabhatola ,Post- Podi, Police Station- Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/Claimants versus Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 1 - Brijesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Gopali Prasad Sahu Aged About 24 Years, Permanant R/o Village Bairdah ,police Station Chitrngi ,district- Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh Presently R/o C/o Daljit Singh S/o Niranajan Singh Ward Guru Govind Sing Ward Kavardha District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. Driver of Vehicle No. CG- 09-B- 0904, 2 - Daljit Singh, S/o Niranjan Singh, R/o Guru Govind Singh Ward, Kawardha District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.(Owncer Of Vehicle No. CG- 09-B- 0904) 3 - The United Inda Insurance Co.Ltd Through Divisional Manger Krishna Complex Jail Road Kachery Chowk, Raipur, Distirct- Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. CG- 09-B- 0904) ... Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3. : Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 20.04.2018 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) in case No. 16/16, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,66,168/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of Santosh Dahariya (since deceased). 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 22.12.2015, deceased 3 Santosh Dahariya, who is father of appellants No. 2 to 4, husband of appellant No. 1 and son of appellant No. 5 was returning to his house with his sons on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-09-4188 after attending the annual function of his sons at school. When he reached near Village-Harinchhapara, P.S.- Kawardha, one vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG-09-B-0904 (hereinafter referred to as “ the offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No.1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which, deceased Santosh Dahariya, sustained injuries on different parts of the body. He was immediately taken to District Hospital, Kawardha in 108 vehicle, where looking to gravity of his injuries, he was referred to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, where he succumbed to the injuries on 23.12.2015. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased Santosh Dahariya was 34 years of age, working as fitter and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. The claimants were totally dependent upon the earning of the deceased as he was the sole bread winner of the family as such, they claimed a total sum of Rs. 48,82,000/- with interest as compensation under various heads. 3. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the claimants for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount as compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as notional income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m, 4 whereas there was evidence and also pleading to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month ought to have been assessed by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded less compensation under the other heads. Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 40,000/- each under the head loss of parental consortium to the minor sons/claimants No. 2 to 4 and filial consortium to mother/claimant No. 5. Thus, the appeal may be allowed enhancing the compensation suitably. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company supporting the award impugned submits that the learned Tribunal minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper according to the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 7. As regards income of the deceased, though the claimant has pleaded that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as a fitter, but no documentary or oral evidence in support thereof has been adduced. Therefore, in these circumstances, in absence of any proof regarding the income, the income of the deceased Santosh Dahariya as a skilled labour is considered as Rs. 6,302/- per month as per minimum wages at the relevant time. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 6,302/- which makes the annual income as Rs. 75,624/-. The deceased was married and 35 years of old at the time of accident. Thus, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 5 the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects at 40% of the actual income of the deceased is required to be taken, thus, the amount comes to Rs.30,250/- (40% of Rs. 75,624/-). Further, after deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 12,70,480/-. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has righty awarded Rs. 32,168/- under the head medical expenses and Rs. 40,000/- for loss of spousal consortium to claimant No. 1. The learned Tribunal also awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- under the head loss of estate, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & Ors., reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130, is just and proper. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head ‘loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consorotium. The Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. Thus, keeping in view all these things, above discussion and in view of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and requires reconsideration. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation as under:- S.N o. Head Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Income of the deceased 6,000x12= Rs. 72,000/- p.a. 6,302x12= Rs. 75,624/-/- p.a. 6 2. 40% of above to be added towards future prospects Nil Rs.30,250/- (40% of Rs. 75,624/-) 3. 1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs. 54,000/-(1/4th of 72,000) Rs. 79,405/- (1/4th of 75,624+30,250=1,05,874/-) 4. Multiplier 16 16 5. Total loss of dependency Rs. 8,64,000/-(Rs. 54,000x 16) Rs. 12,70,480/-(Rs. 79,405x 16) 6. For medical expenses Rs. 32,168/- Rs. 32,168/- 7. Towards loss of spousal consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 8. Towards loss of parental consortium Nil Rs. 40,000/- each to claimants No. 2 to 4 Total=1,20,000/- 9. Towards loss of filial consortium Nil Rs. 40,000/- to claimant No. 5. 9. Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 10. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs. 9,66,168/- Rs. 15,32,648/- 8. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimant/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. Rs. 15,32,648/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 9,66,168/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced 7 amount of Rs. 5,66,480/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. Appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned award to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge AMIT PATEL