1 / 6 2025:CGHC:40051 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1184 of 2020 1. Shatrohan Sahani S/o Late Ramvriksh Sahani Aged About 63 Years 2. Smt. Bechani Devi W/o Shatrohan Sahani Aged About 60 Years Both are R/o Village Manihas, Post Office Marathi Goura, Police Station Simri, District Darbhanga Bihar, Pin Code 847428 At Present R/o Banjari Nagar , Ranwabhata, Police Station Khamtarai District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants versus 1. Rajkumar S/o Krishna Yadav R/o Ward No. 21, Rajendra Nagar , Near Lalan Kirana Shop, Jagdalpur, Police Station Bodhghat , District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Owner and Driver of Truck No. C.G. 17 H 0255) 2. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through In Charge Officer Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Fourth Floor, Maruti Hight, Mahobabazar Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, Police Station Aamanaka, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Truck No. C.G. 17 H 0255) ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None appeared, though served. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 11/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for appellants submits that liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company which is represented by counsel and therefore appeal be heard finally at motion stage. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 2. Submission of learned counsel for appellants of liability to satisfy amount of compensation upon Respondent No. 3-insurance company is not disputed by the counsel for Respondent No. 3. He submits that he is having no objection if appeal is heard finally at motion stage. 3. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. 4. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 05.11.2019 passed by Learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 255/2018, whereby application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 was allowed in part, awarded total sum of ₹ 8,06,000/- as compensation in motor accidental death case, fastened liability to satisfy award upon non-applicant No. 2-Insurance Company. 5. This appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accidental death of Late Pappu Sahni in an accident occurred on 23.01.2018 at about 10:30 pm in night, involvement of vehicle truck bearing number CG17-H-0255 (hereinafter referred to as “offending truck”) owned and driven by non- applicant No. 1, non-applicant No. 2 being insurer and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicant No. 2 is not in dispute. 6. In the above facts of the case, this Court is not discussing in detail, pleadings made by the claimants in their claim application, reply filed by non-applicants therein and discussed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award, however, only considering the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as ₹ 5,000 per month only overlooking the date of accident and occupation as pleaded in the claim 3 / 6 application. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of consortium, however, only awarded ₹ 10,000 each to the claimant towards loss of love and affection. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with regard to assessment of income of deceased as ₹ 5,000 per month on the date of accident is concerned, the occupation and income of deceased is pleaded to be working as Mechanic in rice mill, earning ₹ 15,000 per month, however, there is no clinching and admissible evidence available in record to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application neither the employer is examined to prove the nature of occupation and income of deceased except the evidence of AW-2, Viranjo Mahto, who in his evidence has stated about occupation/ work of deceased as Mechanic in rice mill. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal justified in taking recourse to assess income of deceased on notional basis treating him to be working as Mechanic in the rice mill. If for any reason claimants failed to prove income of deceased by placing admissible evidence, then also the Tribunals are required to assess income of deceased/ injured keeping in mind certain factors like age of deceased, date of accident, cost of living, price index and wages prevailing on the date of accident in the area of which deceased was resident and can also take 4 / 6 help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer. Claims Tribunal fell into error in not taking into consideration these factors. As the Tribunal considered the occupation as Rice mill mechanic, however, claimants failed to prove income of deceased, I find it appropriate to hold that the occupation of deceased to be one of the skilled labourer. 11. As there is no material in record to suggest the wages prevailing at the place where the deceased was resident of, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing within the State of Chhattisgarh. Deceased was resident of village Ravabhata P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur, and as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.10.2017 till 31.03.2018 for skilled labourer for C-Zone area is ₹ 9,360/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of deceased on the date of accident is assessed as ₹ 9,360. It is ordered accordingly. 12. So far as the other submission made by learned counsel for appellants- claimants of non award of loss of consortium is concerned, perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal awarded ₹ 10,000 each of the claimant under the head of love and affection, which is erroneous. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, explained types of consortium that widow/ husband would be entitled for loss of spousal consortium, children and parents of the deceased would be entitled for loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium respectively. In the case at hand, appellants are parents of deceased, therefore, they are entitled for loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 5 / 6 13. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be increased by 10% in every three years, and therefore amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be ₹ 16,500, loss of estate would be ₹ 16,500, and loss of consortium would be ₹ 44,000 each. 14. Age of the deceased on the date of accident is held to be 24 years, based on the documents available on record. There shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses, application of multiplier would be 18, as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 15. For the foregoing discussion, amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 1,12,320/- (₹ 9360x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 1,12,320 + 40% of ₹ 1,12,320 = ₹ 1,57,248) • Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,57,248 x 1/2= ₹ 78,624) • Multiplier of 18 ₹ 78,624 x 18 = ₹ 14,15,232/- ₹ 14,15,232/- Loss of filial consortium to Appellants (₹ 44,000 x 2) ₹ 88,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 16,500/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/- Total ₹ 15,36,232/- 16. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 15,36,232/- instead of ₹ 8,06,000/- as awarded by learned Claims 6 / 6 Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. • Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn