1 2025:CGHC:18429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1192 of 2020 1 - Smt. Rehana Begum W/o Late Nawab Khan Aged About 22 Years 2 - Shahjaad Khan S/o Late Nawab Khan Aged About 4 Years Through Its Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rahana Begum, Husband Late Nawab Khan 3 - Smt. Nahida Begum W/o Shabbir Khan Aged About 46 Years 4 - Shabbir Khan S/o Late Mufti Khan Aged About 48 Years 5 - Asim Khan S/o Shabbir Khan Aged About 28 Years 6 - Javed Khan S/o Shabbir Khan Aged About 22 Years 7 - Smt. Shabnam W/o Sajid Aged About 25 Years All are R/o Ghasidas Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And Distt.- Durg (Chhattisgarh). --- Appellants versus 1 - Janrail Singh S/o Late Sarjeet Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o 35/15, Saini Royal Cargo, T.P. Nagar, Hathkhoj Bhilai, Tahsil And Distt.- Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Owner And Driver Of The Truck Trailer No. Cg07-E5675), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited 1st Floor, Shivnath Complex, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (Chhattisgarh) Through Branch Office- Old R.T.O. Bhawan, Near Rajendra Park Chowk, G.E. Road, Durg, Tahsil And Distt.- Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of Truck Trailer No. Cg07-E5675) --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Iman Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None present though served. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 23/04/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.09 10:21:36 +0530 2 enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.03.2020 passed in MACT No.321/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.15,69,400/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 03.05.2019 Nawab Khan was engaged as conductor, cleaner, helper and co-driver in offending truck bearing registration No.C.G.07-E-5675 and went to Orissa. At about 16.00 o’clock at a place S.H.-33 Pangidi, Police Station – Buguda, respondent No.1, driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, ran over the Nawab Khan and crushed him, as a result, Nawab Khan succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 3. Appellants/claimants being the legal heirs of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 29 years young and healthy man and working as cleaner, helper, co-driver and earning Rs.11,000/- per month. The appellants were dependents upon the deceased. Claimants had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like loss of future income, for love and affection etc. 4. Non-applicant No.2-Insurer of the offending truck denied the allegation made in the claim application. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, respondent No.1 was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. Application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. There was breach of policy condition. Therefore, the 3 respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the amount of compensation. 5. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.15,69,400/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.2-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the occupation and income of the deceased and has erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month only, against the pleadings made in the claim application and the statement of the witnesses that deceased was working as cleaner and co-driver and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It is contended that learned Claims Tribunal also failed to award proper and suitable compensation towards loss of parental consortium to the appellants No.2 and filial consortium to the appellants No.4 & 5 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 4 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on each and every head. It is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 9. So far as the submission with respect to the income of the deceased is concerned, it was pleaded and stated by the claimants that the deceased was working as cleaner and co-driver and earning Rs.11,000/- per month. Perusal of the record of the Claims Tribunal would show that the appellant failed to prove the income of the deceased by producing admissible piece of evidence, hence, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the appellants failed to prove the income as pleaded and stated of the deceased, however, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the income of the deceased taking the help of notification under the Minimum Wages Act prevailing for the said period and have taken the income of the deceased on notional basis as Rs.7,000/- per month. The accident was dated 03.05.2018 and according to the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for a period from 01.04.2018 till 30.09.2018, the income of the unskilled labour fixed for Category-A city is Rs.8320/-. The deceased was resident of District Durg, therefore, I find it appropriate 5 to accept the income of the deceased fixed under the Minium Wages Act of Category -A city as Rs.8,320/- per month. Accordingly, monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,320/- for computing his income. It is ordered accordingly. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal under the head future prospects, added 40% in the income of the deceased, for the purpose of computing compensation as at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 29 years and was self employed, which is correct, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.3,328/- in the monthly income i.e. Rs.8,320/- as assessed by this Court, the total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,648/-. Accordingly, annual income of the deceased works out to Rs.1,39,776/-. There is no dispute with respect to deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses and application of multiplier of 17 applied by the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly after deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,04,832/-. After applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.17,82,144/-. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded further sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the appellant No.1-wife, however, had not awarded any amount towards loss of parental consortium to the appellant No.2. The appellant No.2 being the child, who has lost the company of his father in a very tender age of 4 years, he is also entitled for loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-. It is ordered 6 accordingly. The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards filial consortium to the respondents No.4 and 5, accordingly, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to respondent No.4 and 5 towards filial consortium. The amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses is maintained. 12. In case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the amounts under other conventional heads should be revisited on percentage basis in every three years and enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of every three years. In case at hand, accident is of the year 2018. Hence, the appellants are entitled for 10% enhancement on the amount under other conventional heads. So, by enhancing the amount awarded under other conventional heads at the rate of 10%, the appellants are now entitled for a sum of Rs. 16,500/- each (15000+10% increase after 3 years) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses i.e. total Rs.33,000/- under both the heads. Likewise, appellants No.1 to 4 are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each (40000 + 10% increase after 3 years) i.e. Rs.1,76,000/- for loss of consortium (spousal, parental and filial). 13. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. Loss of income/dependency : Rs.17,82,144.00 2. For loss of estate + Funeral expenses (16500+ 16500) : Rs. 33,000.00 3. For loss of consortium (spousal, : Rs.1,76,000.00 7 parental and filial) to appellants No.1 to 4 (Rs.44,000 x 4 = Rs.1,76,000/- Total Compensation : Rs.19,91,144.00 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.19,91,144.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Other conditions imposed by the Tribunal in impugned award shall remain intact. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram