1 2025:CGHC:19275 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1105 of 2020 1. Atma Ram S/o Late Laxman Ram Aged About 53 Years Occupation Labourer , R/o Village Sohga , Police Station Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2. Salho Kujur W/o Atma Ram Aged About 50 Years Occupation House Wife , R/o Village Sohga , Police Station Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Shankar Pal Singh S/o Vijay Bahadur Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Judapara , Chhindkalo, Police Station Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner of the offending vehicle). 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited Ambedkar Chowk, Near Banaras Road, Petrol Pump Parishar, Ambikapur , Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of the offending vehicle). 3. Mukesh Kumar Singh S/o Shivnarayan Singh R/o Judapara, Chhindkalo, Police Station Darima , District Surguja Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Motimpur , Police Station Darima , Tahsil Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Driver of the offending vehicle). --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1106 of 2020 1. Jirmina Kujur W/o Late Karamchand Kujur Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sohaga (Kharrapara), Police Station Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2. Sonakshi Kujur D/o Late Karamchand Kujur Aged About 6 Years Minor Legal Guardian Mother Jirmina Kujur Wife of Late Karamchand Kujur, 2 Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Sohaga (Kharrapara) , Police Station Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 3. Sakshi Kujur D/o Late Karamchand Kujur Aged About 3 Years Minor Legal Guardian Mother Jirmina Kujur Wife Of Late Karamchand Kujur, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Sohaga (Kharrapara) , Police Station Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants-claimants Versus 1. Mukesh Kumar Singh S/o Shivnarayan Singh R/o Judapara , Chhindkalo, Police Station Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Motimpur, Police Station Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle). 2. Shankar Pal Singh S/o Vijay Bahadur Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Judapara, Chhindkalo, Police Station Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner of the Offending Vehicle). 3. The New India Insurance Comapny Limited Ambedkar Chowk, Near Banaras Road, Petrol Pump Parishar, Ambikapur, Surguja Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MAC No.1105/2020 For Appellants : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None though served. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : None though served. MAC No.1106/2020 For Appellants : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None though served. For Respondent No.2 : None though served. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 29/4/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, these appeals are heard finally. 2. As the above two appeals arise out of the same accident, they are 3 heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Appellants in MAC No.1105/2020 are parents of deceased and appellants in MAC No.1106/2020 are widow and children of deceased. Appellants in both theses appeals have sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur District Surguja (henceforth ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 5.2.2020 passed in Claims Cases No.132/2011 and 169/2018 by which the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.14,58,882/- to them and apportioned the same in equal shares among five claimants i.e. one-fifth to each claimant. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20.1.2018 at 8:00 p.m. Karamchand along with his friend Animesh Kujurwas going towards his house on scooty bearing registration mark CG15-CD-5271, at that time, one Pulsar motorcycle coming from opposite direction and driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed motorcycle of Karamchand as a result he sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in District Hospital, Ambikapur for treatment, however, looking to deteriorating condition of Karamchand, he was taken to BR Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur where he died on 12.2.2018 during treatment. Accident was reported in police station Darima based on which Crime No.42/2018 was registered under Section 304A of IPC. 5. Two separate applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) were filed by legal representatives of the deceased before the Claims Tribunal, one by widow & children and other by parents of the deceased, claiming 4 compensation on account of death of deceased in a motor vehicular accident. Both the applications came to be registered as Claims Case No.132/2018 and 169/2018. 6. The driver and owner of offending vehicle filed their reply pleading that claimants have not produced any documentary evidence with respect to income of deceased like income tax return, GST account etc., therefore, income as claimed by claimants is not acceptable. On the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant Insurance Company, there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy, therefore, insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. 7. Non-applicant Insurance Company submitted its reply to application and denied the averments made therein. It was pleaded that the offending vehicle was plied on road in gross violation of conditions of insurance policy. Driver of offending vehicle was not having valid driving license to drive. Report of accident was not lodged promptly. Owner and insurer of vehicle which deceased was driving were necessary parties but they have not been arrayed. 8. The Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver; there was no violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy and allowed both the applications in part; awarded total compensation of Rs.14,58,882/- to them; apportioned the award equally in the ratio of one-fifth to each claimant and fastened liability upon non-applicants, 5 jointly and severally, to satisfy the impugned award. 9. 9. Learned counsel for appellants in both the appeals would argue that the claimants in their application and evidence have specifically stated that on the date of accident, deceased was engaged in wholesale business of selling chicken and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month by recording that claimants failed to prove income of deceased by placing documentary evidence on record. She submits that in absence of documentary proof, the Claims Tribunal should have assessed income of deceased on the basis of price index, cost of living, wage structure or minimum wage notified by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the area where deceased was residing. She further argued that the deceased was survived by five dependent family members i.e. widow, parents and two children, and therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted one-fourth in stead one-third towards personal expenses of deceased. He further argued that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium to the children and parents of the deceased. Hence, she prays that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company in both the appeals has supported the impugned award and contended that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record 6 12.As regards the income of deceased, perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal disbelieved version of claimants that deceased was wholesaler of chicken and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by recording that the claimants failed to produce any concrete evidence with respect to occupation and income of deceased and therefore assessed income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month on notional basis. In opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any mistake in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. However, in cases where documentary evidence is not produced in proof of income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal should treat the deceased to be a labourer and determine his income on the basis of wage rate prevailing in area, price index, cost of living or can take help of the wage rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act. In case at hand, the Claims Tribunal, on guess work assessed income of deceased to be Rs.4,500/- per month and did not resort to circulars/notifications issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notifying wage rate for skilled, unskilled and high skilled workers and therefore, fixation of income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month by learned Claims Tribunal is not proper. 13.Date of accident is 20.1.2018. Deceased was resident of District Surguja which is a ‘B’ grade city. As per Schedule ‘B’ issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Raipur notifying minimum wage for the unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and high skilled workers for the period from 1.10.2017 to 31.3.2018, would show that minimum wage notified for a unskilled worker is Rs.8,060/- per month for ‘B’ grade city. Thus, considering minimum wage rate prevailing for unskilled worker on the 7 date of accident in District Surguja, which is a ‘B’ grade city, I am of the view that income of deceased can be fixed at Rs.8,060/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Since at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 24 years and not in permanent employment, the Claims Tribunal was correct in adding 40% of assessed income of deceased towards future prospects. Looking to the age of deceased, multiplier of 18 applied by Claims Tribunal is also correct. 15. In case at hand, legal representatives of the deceased filed separate applications under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Claims Tribunal. One is filed by widow & children and another by parents of the deceased. Both these applications were decided by the Claims Tribunal vide common award. Thus, it can be seen that there were total five legal representatives of the deceased. Deduction towards personal expenses of deceased is to be made considering the number of surviving dependent members in the family of deceased. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), where number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. In case at hand, total surviving dependent family members of deceased is 5, who are appellants before this Court in these two appeals and therefore, deduction of one-third towards personal expenses of deceased by the Claims Tribunal is not in consonance with the decision in case of Sarla Verma (supra). Looking to number of dependent family members, appropriate deduction would be one- fourth instead of one-third as applied by the Claims Tribunal. It is 8 ordered accordingly. 16. Perusal of impugned award would show that Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium, but it has not been specified as to whom this amount is awarded. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium and the amount to be awarded under this head is fixed as Rs.40,000/-. In case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the decision of Constitution Bench in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), has explained about granting the compensation under the head of loss of consortium and also categorized the loss of consortium as 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial consortium'. Relevant para of the 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 care help 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. 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 9 "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 lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.” 17. Thus, as per decision in Nanu Ram’s case (supra), the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In case at hand, there is no dispute that appellants in these two appeals are widow, children and parents of deceased and being so, as per decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Nanu Ram’s case (supra), they are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium i.e. spousal, parental and filial. It is ordered accordingly. 18. Appellants have claimed that they have spent money in the treatment of deceased and had produced the medical bills and receipts as Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-122. The Claims Tribunal after deducting discount granted to claimants and the amount involved in bills of Ex.P-33, 35, 49, 70, 74, 79, 82 and 229 on the ground that amount of these bills is already included in Ex.P-18, has awarded an amount of Rs.4,16,682/- on the head of 'medical expenses'. The amount awarded by Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses being based on documentary 10 evidence, is just and proper and hence no interference is required under the said head. Considering the period of treatment of deceased as inpatient in different hospitals i.e. from 20.1.2018 to 12.2.2018, the Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- for traveling expenses; Rs.15,000/- for special diet and Rs.30,000/- on the head of 'attendant charges, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and reasonable and hence, it does not require any interference. 19. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 20.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.8060/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.11284/- (8060+3224) and annual income would be Rs.1,35,408/-. Out of this amount, one-four is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as held above, and after deducting one-fourth, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,01,556/- (135408-33852). Applying multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.18,28,008/- (101556x18). Besides this, appellant-wife is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant-children are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for loss of parental consortium and appellants-parents are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each for filial consortium, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Appellants are also entitled for Rs.4,16,682/- as awarded by Claims 11 Tribunal towards medical expenses; Rs.20,000/- for travelling expenses; Rs.15,000/- for special diet and Rs.30,000/- for attendant. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.25,39,690/- (18,28,008 + 4,16,682 + 20000 + 15,000 + 30,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15000 + 15,000) recoverable from the respondents, jointly and severally. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. 21.In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/ SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI