1 2025:CGHC:54009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1863 of 2018 1 - Smt. Savita Prajapati Wd/o Late Shivnath Prajapati Aged About 25 Years, occupation housewife, R/o Village Baroul, Police Chowki Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Anchal D/o Late Shivnath Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother App. No.1, R/o Village Baroul, Police Chowki Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ayush Kumar S/o Late Shivnath Prajapati Aged About 3 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother App. No.1, R/o Village Baroul, Police Chowki Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pushpendra Kumar S/o Late Shivnath Prajapati Aged About 5 months Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother App. No.1, R/o Village Baroul, Police Chowki Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Raniya Bai W/o Sadhu Ram Aged About 55 Years, occupation housewife R/o Village Baroul, Police Chowki Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Amjat Khan S/o Jamaluddin Aged About 32 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, Caste Musalman, R/o Village Salka, Police Station Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.06 19:22:58 +0530 2 2 - Raghvendra Kumar Gupta S/o Girish Kumar Gupta Aged About 28 Years Occupation Owner Of Vehicle, R/o Main Road, Salka, Police Station Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Ambikapur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 04.11.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 12.04.2018 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.45/2017 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that on 12.03.2017, the deceased Shivnath was going from village Baraul to Kenapara on his motorcycle along with his friend Chainsai, when near Baraul Tiraha, a Duster car bearing registration No. CG-15-CV-2416 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) being driven rashly and negligently by the non- applicant No. 1 on the main road, collided head-on with their motorcycle. As a result of the impact, both the motorcyclist and the pillion rider were thrown off the vehicle. Upon receiving information about the incident, the family members of the deceased reached the 3 spot and took Shivnath to Mission Hospital, Ambikapur, for treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment between 3:00 and 4:00 AM. 3. The claimants being wife, children, mother of deceased Shivnath have filed a claim petition claiming Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation under various heads. 4. The reply filed on behalf of non-applicants No. 1 and 2 stating that the burden of proving the alleged accident rests upon the claimants. It is admitted that on the date of the incident, i.e., 12.03.2017, non- applicant No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle owned by non- applicant No. 2, having a valid and effective driving license. It is further contended that if liability for the alleged accident is established, then on the date of the incident, the said vehicle was duly insured with insurance company, and hence, the liability, if any, would rest solely with the insurance company. 5. The counter reply filed on behalf of non-applicant No. 3, denied the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident. It is contended that the accident in question was caused by an unknown vehicle on 12.03.2017, whereas the FIR was lodged belatedly on 22.05.2017. The inquest intimation dated 13.03.2017 does not mention the offending vehicle, which indicates that the said vehicle has been falsely implicated to claim compensation. It has been further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the motorcycle by deceased Shivnath himself. Since the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle have not been impleaded 4 as necessary parties, the claim is liable to be dismissed for non- joinder of necessary parties. It is also pleaded that non-applicant No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify any compensation. 6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month, adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 17, awarded an amount of Rs.9,63,900/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.70,000/- towards other conventional heads, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.10,33,900/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding any amount towards future prospects and awarded meagre amount towards loss of consortium. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads 5 and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licnece, as such, Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation. He further submits that after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has passed just compensation to the claimants, which needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.15,000/- per month by tailoring and agriculture work, but has not produced any evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove income as pleaded in their claim application, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, income of deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. The date of accident was 12.03.2017, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.6,206/- per month. 11. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the 6 Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2017, this Court has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.6,206/- per month, i.e. Rs.74,472/- per annum. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age without fixed income, 40% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects (Rs.29,788.8 rounded off to Rs.29,789/-), which comes to Rs.1,04,261/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses (Rs.26,065.25 rounded off to Rs.26,065/-), annual income of deceased comes to Rs.78,196/-. After applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.13,29,332/-. 12. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% 7 enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076. 13. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.6,206/- per month Rs.74,472/- per annum 2. 40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 74,472 + 29,789 = Rs.1,04,261/- 3. 1/4th of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 1,04,261 / 4 = Rs.26,065/- = Rs.78,196/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 17 applied 78,196 x 17 Rs.13,29,332/- 5. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the five claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.2,40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- Total Compensation Rs.16,05,332/- 8 Awarded 14. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.16,05,332/-. After deducting Rs.10,33,900/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.5,71,432/-. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5,71,432/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 16. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh