1 / 6 2025:CGHC:43075 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 286 of 2021 1. Smt. Ramin Bai Kaiwartya Wd/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Kenwat (Kaiwartya) Aged About 33 Years 2. Ayush Kumar Kaiwartya S/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Kenwat (Kaiwartya) Aged About 11 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt. Rain Bai Kaiwartya Wd/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Kenwat (Kaiwartya) 3. Ankit Kumar Kaiwartya S/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Kenwat (Kaiwartya) Aged About 7 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt. Rain Bai Kaiwartya Wd/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Kenwat (Kaiwartya) All are R/o Village and Post Atal Awas Colony, Chilhati Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants versus 1. Om Prakash Kumar Singh S/o Vishnulok Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Karamdeeh, Post and Police Station Pandu, District Palamu (Jharkhand) (Driver of Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04/l.D./7204) 2. Amit Bhusaniya S/o Narayan Bhusaniya R/o H.D.D. 49, Main Road Kabirnagar, Raipur, Police Station Kabirnagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04/l.D./7204) 3. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager Division Office 1st Floor, B 07, Shriramnagar, T.V. Tower Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh) (Insurer of Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04/l.D./7204) ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 25/08/2025 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 31.10.2019 passed by Learned Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 449/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part, awarded total sum of ₹ 13,39,600/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accidental death of Late Bhagwat Prasad Kenwat, aged about 35 years, in an accident occurred on 28.04.2018, involvement of vehicle truck bearing number CG04-LD-7204 (hereinafter referred to as “offending truck”) owned by non-applicant No. 2, driven by non-applicant No. 1, as well as non-applicant No. 3 being insurer and the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicants therein jointly and severally is not in dispute. 3. In the above facts of the case, this Court is not entering into factual aspect of the case 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. 4. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing notional income of deceased as ₹ 6,000 per month only, overlooking the date of accident, occupation and income, as pleaded in the claim application. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of 1/4 as also erred in awarding less amount of compensation under other conventional heads and would submit that the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 3 / 6 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 7. Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with regard to assessment of notional income of deceased as ₹ 6,000 per month on the date of accident is concerned, occupation and income of deceased is pleaded to be working as motor mechanic, earning ₹ 15,000 per month. To prove the income and occupation of deceased, claimants have examined Smt. Ramin Bai, widow of deceased, as AW-1, no other witness has been examined to prove this pleading and further no clinching and admissible evidence is available in record so as to ascertain nature of occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal justified in taking recourse to assess income of deceased on notional basis, however, Tribunal fell into error in not taking into consideration certain factors like age of deceased, date of accident, cost of living, price index, inflation etc. as also the wages prevailing in area and also the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 8. As there is no material in the record to suggest 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 Bilaspur. As per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.03.2018 till 30.09.2018 for unskilled labourer of C-Zone area is ₹ 8,100/- per month. 4 / 6 Therefore, I find it appropriate to determine monthly income of deceased on the date of accident as ₹ 8,100. It is ordered accordingly. 9. So far as the other submission made by learned counsel for appellants- claimants with regard to application of deduction towards personal and living expenses and less award of compensation on other conventional heads is concerned, object of the Act of 1988 is to award just compensation and not bonanza. Perusal of award would show that Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses. According to the decision in case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, where the deceased was married and number of claimants are 2 to 3, there shall be deduction of 1/3. Accordingly, I find it appropriate to apply deduction of 1/3 instead of 1/4 as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 10. Further perusal of award would show that Claims Tribunal awarded ₹ 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium to widow and children. Award of loss of consortium was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein compensation under loss of consortium is quantified as ₹ 40,000. 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, further explained types of consortium that is to be awarded to the claimants which are loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents of the deceased of ₹ 40,000/- each. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal with regard to awarding of compensation of ₹ 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium to claimants is set aside. In the case at hand, appellants-claimants are widow and children of deceased. Therefore, they are entitled for loss of spousal consortium and loss of parental consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 5 / 6 11. Apart from it, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income to the income of deceased towards future prospects, application of multiplier of 16, funeral expenses of ₹ 15,000 and loss of estate of ₹ 15,000, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 12. Further, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be increased by 10% in every three years, and therefore it is ordered that amount of compensation under the other conventional heads to be increased by 10%. Upon computing, the amount of compensation towards funeral expenses would be ₹ 16,500, loss of estate would be ₹ 16,500, and loss of consortium would be ₹ 44,000 each. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 97,200/- (₹ 8100x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 97,200 + 40% of ₹ 97,200 = ₹ 1,36,080) • Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,36,080 x 1/3= ₹ 45,360; ₹ 1,36,080-₹ 45,360= ₹ 90,720 ) • Multiplier of 16 ₹ 90,720 x 16 = ₹ 14,51,520/- ₹ 14,51,520/- Loss of Spousal Consortium ₹ 44,000/- Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 & 3 (₹ 44,000 x 2) ₹ 88,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 16,500/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/- Total ₹ 16,16,520/- 14. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 16,16,520/- instead of ₹ 13,39,600/- 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. 15. 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