-1- 2025:CGHC:19246 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 857 of 2020 1 - Nirmati Mehar W/o Late Pandit Ram Aged About 55 Years 2 - Rathbai Mehar D/o Late Pandit Ram Aged About 29 Years 3 - Raghuvar Singh Mehar S/o Late Pandit Ram Aged About 24 Years All are R/o Madwa Chandrapur District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Present R/o Village Masturi Police Station Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Sunil Kumar, S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 35 Years R/o Laxminagar Manpuri Chauraha Sikandarabad District Firozabad (UP) (Vehicle Truck No RJ/ 9 GB 8138) (Driver) 2 - Ajay Kumar Patel, S/o Shiv Shankar Patel R/o Sakin G 4/11 Rohini North West Delhi, A/ P - Ramdev Ji Ka Chandriya, Chaiturgarh Rajasthan. (Vehicle Truck No. RJ/ 9 GB 8138) (Owner) 3 - Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd Through Its Branch Manager Office Address 1st Floor, B - 7, Shree Ram Nagar, T V Tower Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Jashraj Singh Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma with Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocates _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.05.09 10:16:33 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 29/04/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) vide award dated 03.01.2020 passed in Claim Case No.301 of 2019. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 07.02.2019, Panditram Mehar was going from Kudumkela to Raigarh along with his son Raghunath on a motorcycle as a pillion rider. As soon as they reached near Punjipathra, the driver of truck no. RJ-09 GB- 8138 near Jindal Trauma Centre drove the truck rashly and negligently and dashed against Panditram Mehar and his son causing an accident, as a result of which, Panditram Mehar and his son received grievous injuries and both of them died during treatment. 4. Claimants/appellants who are wife and children of deceased- Pandit Ram Mehar filed an application under Sections 166 of the Act of 1988 pleading therein that deceased Pandit Ram Mehar aged 54 years was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as a Mason and maintaining the applicants from the said income. Applicants were dependent on the income of the deceased. Due to untimely death of the deceased, applicants have been deprived of -3- the income of the deceased. They prayed for total compensation of Rs. 23,50,000/- under different heads. 5. As non-applicants No. 1 & 2 did not appear in the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal they were proceeded ex-parte, no written statement has been submitted by them. 6. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company by filing its written statement, denied the pleadings made in the claim application and it is stated that non-applicant No. 1 did not drive the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is the driver of motorcycle Raghunath who drove the motorcycle rashly and negligently. Despite having knowledge that non-applicant No. 1 did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle/transport vehicle on the date of the alleged accident, yet non-applicant No.2/owner operated the vehicle through non-applicant No.1 which is in violation of the terms of insurance policy, therefore, non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company is not liable to pay amount of compensation, if any. It was further stated that after the alleged accident, non-applicants No.1 and 2 did not intimate about the accident. As per the First Information Report and criminal case, the accident has been caused by an unknown vehicle. Therefore, claim application against non-applicant/ insurance company is not maintainable and it be dismissed. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non- applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident -4- occurred in which Pandit Ram Mehar and his son Raghunath suffered grievous injuries and died during course of their treatment. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non- applicant No.3/Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, calculating amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,45,200/ -. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants raises a short point for enhancement of the amount of compensation, that while considering the income of the deceased who was stated to be working as Mason, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the date of accident and minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident, as also not considered the fact that deceased was a skilled labourer. He further submits that though claimant No.1/wife of the deceased has been awarded compensation towards loss of consortium, however, no amount of consortium has been awarded to appellant/claimants No. 2 and 3 being children of the deceased. He prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts of the case and it does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. -5- 11. Undisputedly, non-applicant No.1 is the driver of offending vehicle, which caused the accident, the owner of the offending vehicle is non-applicant No. 2 and the insurer of said vehicle is non-applicant No. 3. 12. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessing income of the deceased is concerned, even if deceased Pandit Ram Mehar is to be treated as Labourer, in absence of admissible piece of evidence with respect to occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application, then also it is for the Tribunal to assess income of deceased treating him to be labourer considering the wages prevailing, price index, cost of living and as per the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 13. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner and Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for ‘Class-C zone/area’ for ‘unskilled labourer’, monthly income has been prescribed as Rs.7,800/- per month. In absence of admissible piece of evidence of occupation and income of deceased, on the date of accident, if the deceased is to be treated as Labourer, his income should not have been less than Rs.7,800/- per month (minimum wages fixed by competent authority), hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.7,800/- per month instead of Rs.6,000/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. -6- 14. Perusal of the impugned award shows that as on the date of accident i.e. 07.02.2019 deceased Pandit Ram Mehar was aged about 60 years, an addition of 10% in the assessed income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects has correctly been made by the learned Tribunal. Further, looking to the number of dependents of the deceased, deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses as also multiplier of 9 has correctly been applied by learned Claims Tribunal. 15. So far as the amount of compensation on other conventional heads is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal has only awarded amount of consortium to appellant/claimant No.1 who is wife of deceased Pandit Ram Mehar, however, no amount of consortium has been awarded to appellants/claimants No. 2 & 3 who are the children of deceased. Principle of awarding compensation towards loss of consortium has been dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. The said principle has further been explained in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. In the case of Nanu Ram (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained that there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium to be awarded to legal representatives of the deceased at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. The Claimants No. 2 & 3 are the children of the deceased. As per the law down in the case of Nanu Ram (supra), each of appellant/claimants No. 2 & 3 will be entitled for amount of -7- Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 16. For the foregoing discussions and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 7800 x 12 = 93,600 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 10% (93600 x 10% =9360) 93600 + 9360 = 1,02,960 (C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (1,02,960 x 1/3 =34320) 1,02,960- 34320 = 68,640 (D) Multiplier of 9 68,640 x 9 = 6,17,760/- Rs. 6,17,760 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1/wife of deceased : (+) Rs. 40,000 5. Loss of Parental Consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each of claimants No. 2 and 3 being children of the deceased : (+) Rs. 80,000 Total compensation : Rs. 7,67,760 17. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.7,67,760/- instead of Rs.5,45,200/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 18. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its -8- realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 19. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/--/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen