Page No.1 2025:CGHC:43022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2172 of 2019 1. Smt. Sampatiya Wd/o Late Rajesh Yadav Aged About 29 Years 2. Minor Kripa S/o Late Rajesh Yadav Aged About 10 Years 3. Minor Kriti S/o Late Rajesh Yadav Aged About 9 Years 4. Minor Durgesh S/o Late Rajesh Yadav Aged About 6 Years 5. Prakash Yadav S/o Late Manrakhan Yadav Aged About 52 Years 6. Smt. Ganeshpatiya W/o Prakash Yadav Aged About 51 Years 7. Rajkumar Yadav S/o Praksh Yadav Aged About 26 Years 8. Minor Mansa Yadav D/o Prakash Yadav Aged About 17 Years 9. Minor Raju Yadav S/o Prakash Yadav Aged About 15 Years Appellant No.2, 3,4, 8 and 9 are minor through next friend appellant No.1 herself. All R/o Village Girang Kadampath, Kamarima, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Kuleshwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Sukvasu Para, Tahsil - Bagicha , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2. Ramawatar Gupta S/o Kuleshwar Prasad Gupta Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Sukhvasu Para, Tahsil Bagicha , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited S-8 And S-9, 2nd Floor, Chhattisgarh Plaza Agrasen Chowk , Beside Telephone Exchange , Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. …..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Page No.2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board 25/8/2025 1. This appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Jashpur, District Jashpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 15.7.2019 in MACT No.79/2018. 2. Since death of deceased Rajesh Yadav in a road traffic accident dated 9.11.2017 and involvement of offending vehicle Tata Pick- up bearing registration No.OR16-C-7268, which is owned by non- applicant No.1, driven by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non- applicant No.3, in said accident is not in dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on the question of enhancement of quantum of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation by assessing income of deceased, aged about 33 years at the time of accident, as Rs.6,000/- per month on notional basis. He contended that even if claimants failed to prove occupation and income of deceased, the Claims Tribunal ought to have determined income of deceased on the basis of minimum wage rate fixed by competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He next contended that Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to children Page No.3 and parents of deceased, who are also entitled for the same in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3- Insurance Company would submit that the Claims Tribunal minutely analyzed the evidence available on record and arrived at a conclusion that claimants failed to prove income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be erroneous finding. He next contended that compensation computed and awarded is just and proper. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. 6. So far as income of deceased is concerned, claimants/appellants pleaded in claim application that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by selling milk. This assertion is supported by oral testimony of the witnesses produced by appellants, but they failed to produce any documentary or other admissible evidence to substantiate their claim with respect to occupation and income of deceased. In such a situation, the Claims Tribunal was right in assessing monthly income of deceased on notional basis. However, assessment of notional income of the deceased by the Claims Tribunal on guess work is not correct. In case at hand, accident occurred on 15.4.2018 and at that time, deceased Page No.4 was resident of District Jashpur. As per classification of zones by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act 1948, ‘Jashpur city’ falls within Zone-C area and minimum wage rate notified for an unskilled worker of Zone-C area for the period from 1.4.2018 to 30.9.2018 is Rs.8,1000/- per month. Hence, I deem it proper to fix income of deceased as Rs.8,1000/- per month in place of Rs.6,000/- per month as assessed by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In view of the fact that deceased was 33 years survived by six dependent family members, addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects, deduction of one-fourth towards personal and living expenses of deceased; application of multiplier of 16 by learned Claims Tribunal to compute the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi (supra) and the same needs no interference. Award of compensation under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate is also in accordance with law. 8. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- only, towards loss of consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium is governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in the matter of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra), according to which each claimant is entitled to consortium at the rate of Page No.5 Rs.40,000/- each under spousal, filial and parental respectively in case claimants are wife/husband, parents and children. In the instant case, appellant No.1 is wife, appellant Nos.2 to 4 are children and appellant No.5 and 6 are parents of deceased and therefore, they are entitled for compensation towards loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs 40,000/- each to appellant No.1 for loss of spousal consortium, appellant Nos.2 to 4 towards loss of parental consortium and appellant No.5 and 6 towards loss of filial consortium. Appellant No.7, being brother of deceased, is not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Since, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, is to be increased by 10% after every three years in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), therefore, appellants will be entitled to get Rs.44,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium; Rs.16,500/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 10.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 11.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.8,100/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, total income comes to Rs.11,340/-. Thus, annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Page No.6 Rs.1,36,080/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting one-fourth, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,02,060/-. By applying multiplier of 16, as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.16,32,960/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium; appellants No.2 to 4 is entitled for Rs.44,000/- each (1,32,000/-) for loss of parental consortium and appellant Nos.5 and 6 are also entitled for Rs.44,000/- each (88,000) towards loss of filial consortium. Appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.16,500/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses i.e. Rs.33,000/-. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.19,29,960/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 12.Any amount already paid to claimants/appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above. 13.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-