Page No.1 2025:CGHC:19245 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 453 of 2020 1 - Surjan Ram Porte S/o Late Mohan Sai Aged About 53 Years R/o Muhalla- Jarhagarh, Banti Kirana/behind Welding Shop, Near Jena Talab, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Civil And Revenue, District : Surguja(Ambikapur),Chhattisgarh 2 - Sandeep Porte S/o Late Hemato Porte Aged About 22 Years R/o Muhalla- Jarhagarh, Banti Kirana/behind Welding Shop, Near Jena Talab, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Civil And Revenue District : Surguja(Ambikapur),Chhattisgarh 3 - Shakuntala Porte (Minor) D/o Late Hemato Porte Aged About 14 Years Natural Guardian Her Father Surjan Ram Porte, R/o Muhalla-Jarhagarh, Banti Kirana/behind Welding Shop, Near Jena Talab, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Arjun Giri S/o Shri Bachhan Giri Aged About 50 Years Occupation Driver Of Vehicle, R/o Village Keshari Madiya, Tahsil-Aigma, Police Station Chhapra (Bihar) At Present Raithana, Kheladi, District Ranchi ( Jharkhand), 2 - Sandeep Agrawal S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal C/o Shri Jagdamba Construction Company, R/o Ward No. 12, Neharu Park, Surajpur, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Near Ambedkar Chauk, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 ; Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate and Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY Page No.2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 29/04/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District-Surguja(for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.103/2019 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of claimants in part and awarded compensation of Rs.4,60,000/- to claimants/appellants herein along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application, in a fatal accident case. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 16.09.2019 at about 4:45 p.m., Hemto Porte (since deceased) along with one Mr. Mishra was returning from village Kalyanpur to Ambikapur on motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-15/DD-3991, when they reached near Sanjay Park located on Ramanujganj Main Road, Hywa bearing registration number CG15-DD-3991, driven by non- applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle from behind and caused accident. In said accident, Hemto Porte sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 3. Claimants/appellants herein filed an application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.79,00,000/- under various heads on the ground that deceased was the owner of a tractor-trolley, she was earning Rs.30,000/- per month from plying tractor on hire basis as well as doing agriculture work. They were Page No.3 dependent on earning of deceased. 4. Non-Applicants No.1 & 2, driver & owner of offending vehicle, filed their reply to claim application denying averments made therein. It was pleaded that claimants have not produced any document relating to age, occupation and income of the deceased. There were three persons travelling on motorcycle whereas seating capacity was only two and thus the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle. Accident is not caused by non-applicant No.1, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation to claimants. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was having valid & effective driving license, the offending vehicle was fully insured with non-applicant No.3-insurance company and therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner in case any compensation is awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 5. Non-Applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its separate reply and denied averments made in claim application except that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with it. Driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license and other documents relating to offending vehicle like permit, fitness certificate etc. were also not valid and effective. Thus, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Page No.4 6. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has arrived at a conclusion that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 herein, there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy and accordingly allowed claim application in part; awarded compensation Rs.4,60,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. by assessing income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month on notional basis. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that only ground raised in this appeal is with respect to quantum of compensation. He submits that assessment of monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that claimants failed to prove occupation and income by placing documentary evidence is not correct. He contended that even if claimants/appellants failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed appropriate income of the deceased on notional basis by resorting to prevalent price index, cost of living, wage rate or minimum wage rate fixed by the Competent Authority in this regard. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount for loss of consortium to all appellants but for appellant No.1 only. Appellant No.2 & 3 being the children of the deceased are also entitled for the amount of compensation towards the loss of consortium. Hence, he prays Page No.5 that the impugned award be modified by enhancing it suitably. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents has supported the impugned award. They submit that the claimants failed to bring on record any documentary evidence establishing income of deceased as pleaded and stated by them. In absence thereof, the Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. They further submit that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the given facts of case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. As regards the income of deceased, perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal disbelieved the version of claimants that deceased was owner of tractor-trolley from which she was carrying out transportation work and she was also doing agriculture work and thereby earning Rs.30,000/- per month, by recording that the claimants failed to produce any concrete evidence to prove the occupation of deceased and income therefrom and accordingly assessed income of deceased at Rs.3000/- per month on notional basis. Under these circumstances, it does not appear that the Claims Tribunal has committed any mistake in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. However, considering that accident in question occurred on 16.9.2019 and during that period, wage rate fixed for a unskilled labourer of ‘B’ Grade city by the Competent Authority Page No.6 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was Rs.8,060/- per month. In the above facts, in considered opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has taken lesser notional income of deceased who was residing in Ambikapur, which comes under ‘B’ grade city. Hence, I find it appropriate to re-assess notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,060/- p.m. instead of Rs.3,000/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. 11. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium whereas number of claimants are three. In case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130, it is laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court that spouse, children and parents being claimant are entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Relevant para of the said decision is as follows:- “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company case held comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. Page No.7 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to loss their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.” 12. The law laid down in Nanu Ram (supra) has been followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, (2021) 11 SCC 780, which reads as under:- “28. Three Conventional Heads in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench held that in death cases, compensation would be awarded only under three conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The Court held that the conventional and traditional heads, cannot be determined on percentage basis, because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified, Page No.8 which has to be based on a reasonable foundation. It was observed that factors such as price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates, are aspects which have to be taken into consideration. The Court held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively…...” 13. In light of above quoted decisions, it is clear that each claimant is entitled for the spousal, parental and filial consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. So, in view of above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as there are total three claimants, who are appellants before this Court, the Claims Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium instead of Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellants herein are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each as compensation towards loss of spousal and parental consortium. 14. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 15. Accordingly, taking the income of deceased as Rs.8060/- per month, as held above, and adding 25% towards future prospects, total income of deceased comes to Rs.10,075/- (8060+2015) and annual income would be Rs.1,20,900/- (10075x12). After deducting one-third towards personal expenses of deceased, as deducted by Claims Tribunal, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.80,600/- (120900-40300). Applying multiplier of 13, Page No.9 as rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.10,47,800/- (80600x13). Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and appellants No.2 & 3 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/-, for loss of parental consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). In addition to this, appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, total amount of compensation to which appellants are entitled for comes to Rs.11,97,800/- (1047800+40000+40000+40000+15000+15000) which is recoverable from the respondents herein, jointly and severally. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 16.Any amount already paid to claimants/appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 17.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Nisha