Page No.1 2025:CGHC:13828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 311 of 2020 1 - Jhumman Lal Sahu S/o Late Bisesar Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years Caste- Teli, Resident Of Ward No. 08, Village- Armarikala, Post- Armarikala, Police Station/tehsil- Gurur, District- Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Kantibai Sahu W/o Jhumman Lal Sahu Aged About 44 Years Caste- Teli, Resident Of Ward No. 08, Village- Armarikala, Post- Armarikala, Police Station/tehsil- Gurur, District- Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Parasram Sahu S/o Late Bhagwatram Sahu Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village- Gangolidih, Police Station- Daundi, District- Balod Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Bus- Cg-19-Bf-5054), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Khumaran Choudhary S/o Harjiram Choudhary Resident Of House No. 60, Baazaarpara, Bhanupratappur, Tehsil- Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Bus- Cg-19-Bf-5054), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Address- Vyavasayik Parisar Pandri, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate on behalf fo Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.26 16:40:28 +0530 Page No.2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 22/03/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.60/2019 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of claimants in part and awarded compensation of Rs.10,88,400/- to claimants/appellants herein along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application, in a fatal accident case. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 01.01.2019 Rudresh Sahu (since deceased) was going on his motorcycle bearing No.CG24- E-5147, when he reached near Police Station Balod, at that time, bus bearing registration No.CG19-BF-5054, which was coming from opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 herein, dashed motorcycle of Rudresh Sahu and caused accident. In the said accident, Rudresh Sahu suffered grievous injuries. He was brought to Primary Health Centre, Balod for treatment where the doctor declared him dead. Accident was reported to concerned police station based on which Crime No.2/2019 for commission of alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against respondent No.1. 3. Claimants/appellants herein, who are parents of deceased, filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Page No.3 Rs.30,50,000/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was working as Salesman in Kabir Krishi Kendra village-Armarikala, earning Rs.12,000/- per month and they were dependent on earning of deceased. 4. Respondent No.1 & 2, owner & driver of offending vehicle, filed their reply to claim application denying averments made therein. They have pleaded that accident took place due to sole negligence of driver of motorcycle and therefore respondent No.1 cannot be held liable for accident. On the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was having valid & effective driving license and as the offending vehicle was fully insured with respondent No.3-insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner in case any compensation is awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 5. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company filed its separate reply and denied averments made in claim application except that on the date of accident the offending motorcycle was insured with it. It was contended that accident in question occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle himself and therefore, it is the case of contributory negligence. 6. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has partly allowed claim application and awarded compensation Rs.10,88,400/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. by taking monthly income of deceased as Rs.7,000/- on Page No.4 notional basis treating the deceased to be a Salesman. The Claims Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the claimants in their evidence have specifically stated that on the date of accident, deceased was working as Salesman and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Baisakhu Ram Sahu(AW-3), has stated that deceased was working under him. However, the Claims Tribunal had not assessed income of deceased accordingly. He further argued that the Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount towards future prospects and even the amount awarded under other conventional head are also on lower side. In addition to the compensation on other heads allowed by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants, the claimants would also be entitled to additional compensation towards filial consortium i.e. Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants being the parents of the deceased who was bachelor on the date of accident. In these circumstances, he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned award. He submits that the claimants failed to bring on record any documentary evidence establishing income of deceased as pleaded and stated by them. In absence thereof, the Claims Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. He further submits that amount of Page No.5 compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for appellants submitted that even if they failed to prove the nature of employment of deceased and his engagement to be of Salesman, income of deceased is to be assessed on minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record 11.So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellants that the Claims Tribunal wrongly assessed monthly income of deceased i.e. 7,000/- per month, is concerned, perusal of pleadings in claim application and statement of appellants would show that deceased Rudresh Sahu was working as Salesman in Kabir Krishi Kendra and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. AW-3 Baisakhu Sahu, the Incharge of the Centre where deceased was working, has stated that deceased was working under him and he was paying Rs.12,000/- per month to him. Though the evidence of AW-2 proves the fact of employment of deceased but there is no documentary evidence on record like books of accounts etc. to substantiate the plea that income of deceased was Rs.12,000/- per month. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in disbelieving the income of the deceased to be Rs.12,000/-, as pleaded. However, it is well settled that in cases where no documentary evidence has come on record to prove income of the deceased, Page No.6 the Claims Tribunal should determine income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act. As per Notification issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, minimum wage prevalent in the year 2017 i.e. October, 2017 for an unskilled worker of ‘A’ Grade cities was Rs.8320/- per month and hence, it will be proper to assess the income of deceased treating him to be a labourer, at Rs.8320/- per month. 12. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation has added 40% towards future prospects, deducted half towards personal expenses of deceased and applied multiplier 18, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is correct and does not call for any interference. However, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards filial consortium to the appellants, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 that filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. Hence, the appellants are held entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. 13. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to claimants/appellants. Page No.7 14. Income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,320/- per month, as held above, and after adding 40% towards future prospects in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the monthly income comes to Rs.11648/- (8320+3328) and annual income comes to Rs.1,39,776/- (10448x12). Out of this, 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased being bachelor and after deducting half, loss of dependency would come to Rs.69,888/-. After applying multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,57,984/- (69888x18). Besides this, appellants being parents of deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nanu Ram(supra). In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.13,67,984/- (12,57,984 + 40,000 +40,000+15,000+15,000) recoverable from the respondents, jointly and severally. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 15.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 Nisha