1 2025:CGHC:52676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 544 of 2025  Rajesh Tirkey S/o Rameshwar Tirkey, Aged About 35 Years R/o Kapatbahari Nawapara, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1. Sarita W/o Late Santosh Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Salyadih, P.O. Bilaspur, P.S. And Tehsil Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2. Santram S/o Late Santosh Aged About 12 Years (Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1), R/o Village Salyadih, P.O. Bilaspur, P.S. And Tehsil Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3. Priyanshu S/o Late Santosh Aged About 11 Years (Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1), R/o Village Salyadih, P.O. Bilaspur, P.S. And Tehsil Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4. Amrita D/o Late Santosh Aged About 9 Years (Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1), R/o Village Salyadih, P.O. Bilaspur, P.S. And Tehsil Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 5. Sabal Sai S/o Late Somaru Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Salyadih, P.O. Bilaspur, P.S. And Tehsil Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 6. Halkaniya W/o Sabal Sai Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Salyadih, P.O. Bilaspur, P.S. And Tehsil Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 7. Krishna Suryavanshi S/o Bahoranlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Taga Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Driver of the : Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate holding the brief offending vehicle of Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rjwade, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.10 .2025 1. The appellant/driver of the offending vehicle has challenged the award passed by the learned 4th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.29 17:07:37 +0530 2 District Surguja in Claim Case No. 217/2023 dated 25.01.2025, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 22,79,520/- with interest at the rate of 9% per anum on account of death of Santosh. 2. The facts of the present case are that on 12.01.2023, the deceased Santosh, who was a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 15 DV 7052, was going to Kenapara along with Anuj Tigga. The driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 11 MB 7817 (appellant herein) by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, consequently, Santosh sustained grievous injuries and during course of treatment died on 20.01.2023. The claimants, who are widow, minor children and parents of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 32 years and he was earning Rs. 500/- per day. The vehicle was not insured. The respondent No. 1/ driver of the offending vehicle filed reply, whereas the owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 3. Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate appearing for the driver of the offending vehicle/appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at higher side. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has wrongly added an additional sum of 20% on amount of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. He would contend that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading evidence. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income of the deceased 3 treating him unskilled labourer. He would pray to modify the award. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate appearing for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 would oppose. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. He would contend that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The age of the deceased, at the time of accident, was 32 years. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was Mason and earning Rs. 500/- per day. The claimants could not adduce documentary evidence to establish the income part of the deceased; therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased according to minimum wages matrix admissible to unskilled labour Rs. 9,700/-. The learned Tribunal has recorded finding in this regard in para 20 of the award, and therefore, the contention made by Mr. Verma with regard to notional income of the deceased appears to be misconceived. 7. The learned Tribunal has awarded 40% additional amount for future prospect looking to the age of the deceased, such finding is fair and reasonable. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 48,000/- each to the claimants for loss of consortium applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) as the date of accident is 12.01.2023 and before expiry of 3 years, the learned Tribunal added 20% additional amount for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, which appears to be improper. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses requires reconsideration. This Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- 4 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 9,700 x12 = Rs. 1,16,400/- Rs. 9,700 x12 = Rs. 1,16,400/- 2. Future Prospect (40%) = Rs. 46,560/- (40%) = Rs. 46,560/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 Rs. 40,740/- Rs. 1,22,220/- (-) 1/4 Rs. 40,740/- Rs. 1,22,220/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs. 19,55,520/- (x) 16 = Rs. 19,55,520/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 3,24,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of consortium (for claimant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- 8. Loss of consortium(for claimant No. 2) Rs. 40,000/- 9. Loss of consortium(for claimant No. 3) Rs. 40,000/- 10. Loss of consortium (for claimant No. 4) Rs. 40,000/- 11. Loss of consortium(for claimant No. 5) Rs. 40,000/- 12. Loss of consortium(for claimant No. 6) Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL Rs. 22,79,520/- Rs. 22,25,520/- 9. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 22,79,520/- awarded by the tribunal is reduced by Rs. 54,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 54,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for total sum of Rs. 22,25,520/-. The driver 5 and owner of the offending vehicle are directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant