1 2025:CGHC:51962 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1232 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on : 08.10.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 17.10.2025 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhimrapur Raod, above of Axis Bank, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Insurer). ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Chanda Devi Shukla W/o Late Chandan Shukla, Aged About 33 Years Occupation Housewife 2 - Amlesh Shukla, S/o Late Chandan Shukla, Aged About 17 Years Occupation Student, 3 - Ku. Priyanka Shukla, D/o Late Chandan Shukla, Aged About 15 Years Occupation Student, 4 - Avinash Shukla S/o Late Chandan Shukla, Aged About 13 Years Occupation Student, No.2 to 4 are Minor, represented through mother Smt. Chanda Devi Shukla, All are resident of Village Singra Khurd, Police Station Daltenganj, District Palamu (Jharkhand). 5 - Jahangir Ansari, S/o Riyasat Hussain Ansari, Occupation Vehicle Driver, Village Chayanki, Post and Police Station Daltenganj, District YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.17 18:05:32 +0530 2 Palamu (Jharkhand) at Present Village Karchali, Post Kanjiya, P.S. Bhandari, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand) (Driver). 6 - Vivekanand Pathak, S/o Gopal Pathak, Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Namnakala Power House Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Owner). ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. R. Tripathi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Judgment 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 12.05.2017 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.48/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and awarded Rs.20,66,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% 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 non-applicants jointly and severally. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, the deceased, Chandan Shukla, son of Govind Shukla, was a resident of village Singra Khurd, Police Station Daltonganj, District Palamu, Jharkhand, aged 40 years at the time of his death. He was 3 employed as a conductor in the Ashirwad bus bearing registration No.CG-15-AB-0314 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), which was plying on the route from Ambikapur to Raigarh. On 20.10.2014, while the bus was crossing near the Kosamghat bridge, the offedning vehicle overturned, allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. As a consequence of the accident, Chandan Shukla sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. 3. The claimants, being the wife and children of the deceased, have filed the claim petition, pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased Chandan Shukla was aged about 40 years and was working as a conductor in the offending vehicle, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/-. The claimants have claimed a total compensation of Rs. 44,50,000/-. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 have denied all claims made by the claimants. They contended that the accident occurred due to the deceased’s own fault, and any compensation payable should be recovered from the insurer of the offending vehicle. 5. Non-applicant No. 3 (Insurance Company) has also denied the claims, stating that the bus was not insured, and denied any violation of insurance conditions by the driver. The insurer further contended that the driver did not possess a valid driving license, and the offending vehicle did not have a fitness certificate, permit, or tax clearance on the date of the accident, as such, Insurance 4 Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation. 6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 20,66,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 6% 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 appellant/Insurance Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company without properly appreciating the facts and evidence on record. It is contended that the income of the deceased was incorrectly assessed as Rs. 15,000/- per month, despite the absence of supporting evidence, and therefore, the same requires correction and reduction. It is further submitted that the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased was incorrectly made as 1/5th, whereas, considering that there are four claimants, the correct deduction should be 1/4th. It is further submitted that the income should be calculated on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act, while the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier in accordance with the age of the deceased. Learned counsel further contended that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is on the higher side and 5 requires reduction. He placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 to buttress his submissions. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondents Nos. 1 to 4 contends that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is manifestly on the lower side and, therefore, deserves to be enhanced by this Court. It is respectfully submitted that the deceased was employed as a conductor in the offending vehicle, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver. As a result of the negligent driving, the bus overturned, causing the deceased to sustain multiple grievous injuries, ultimately resulting in his death. It is further submitted that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/-, which, according to the claimants, has been duly established before the Claims Tribunal on the basis of credible evidence adduced by witnesses. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. From a careful perusal of the record, it is apparent that the deceased held a valid conductor’s licence and had been engaged in the profession of a conductor for the past ten years. The entire family of the deceased was dependent upon him for their 6 livelihood. During cross-examination, certain suggestions were put forth, which were duly denied. The evidence adduced by the wife of the deceased clearly establishes that the deceased was a licensed conductor, and the income earned by him was not disputed by non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, who acknowledged that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. 11. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act cannot be automatically applied in cases involving skilled workers such as drivers, conductors, and khalasis. These employees receive not only a fixed remuneration but also additional benefits such as allowances for food and other incidental expenses. Therefore, their income cannot be equated with that of unskilled labourers, and the minimum wages prescribed for unskilled labourers cannot form the basis for assessing their earnings. 12. Where the Claims Tribunal seeks to adjust or reduce the income as claimed by the claimants, such adjustment must be supported by cogent and credible evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, the income of the deceased cannot be assessed solely on the basis of the pleadings of the insurance company. 13. However, since the precise income of the deceased could not be conclusively established from the record, this Court, while considering the nature of his work, his long experience as a conductor, and the circumstances of the accident, deems it 7 appropriate to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- for the purpose of computing compensation. This assessment strikes a reasonable balance between the evidence on record and the need to ensure just and equitable compensation to the claimants. 14. It is pertinent to mention that though the claimants have not filed any cross-objection/cross-appeal seeking enhancement, looking to the benevolent nature of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even in absence of cross-objection, the Court is empowered to enhance the compensation if the award is found to be inadequate. 15. Recently, in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate and others v. Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav and others passed in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “2. Denial of enhanced compensation on ground that claimants failed to file cross appeal, Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to affected person or claimants. 3. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is 8 awarded to the affected person or the claimants.” 16. On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that even in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection, the Court is empowered to award just and proper compensation, keeping in mind the benevolent object of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 17. From perusal of the impugned award, it is found that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation towards loss of dependency, loss of consortium and other conventional heads. 18. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and it stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 19. As this Court has assessed the income of the deceased on the date of accident to be Rs. 12,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- per annum and going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of 40 years upto 45 years, of age with fixed income, 30% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs. 43,200/- per annum. 9 20. Learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/5th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In the present case, the number of dependents are four in number, as such the proper deduction would be 1/4th. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs. 1,40,400/-. After applying the multiplier of 14 as rightly applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs. 19,65,600/-. 21. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram (supra). 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.80,000/- 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% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2020) 11 SCC 1. 10 22. 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.12,000/- per month Rs.1,44,000/- per annum 2. 30% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 1,44,000 + 43,200 = Rs.1,87,200/- 3. 1/4 of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 1,87,200 / 4 = Rs.46,800/- = Rs.1,40,400/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 14 applied 1,40,400 x 14 Rs.19,65,600/- 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 four claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.1,92,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.21,93,600/- 23. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.21,93,600/-. After deducting Rs.20,66,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.1,27,600/-. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1,27,600/- in addition to what 11 is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 24. Accordingly, while upholding the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed, subject to the aforesaid modification with regard to enhancement of compensation. 25. Since it is an admitted fact that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has failed to prove the fact that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness, 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. 26. The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be remitted forthwith along with a certified copy of this judgment for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh