1 2025:CGHC:30691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2065 of 2019 1. Smt. Ragani W/o Mahendra Tiwari Aged About 28 Years 2. Ansh Tiwari S/o Mahendra Tiwari Aged About 5 Years 3. Vedant Tiwari S/o Mahendra Tiwari Aged About 3 Years Appellant No.2 and 3 is minor through legal guardian mother Appellant No.1 Smt. Ragani Tiwari, All are R/o Near Guest House Ratanpur Ward No. -7 Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Santosh S/o Vishwamuni Mishra Aged About 47 Years R/o Venkatnagar, Thana Anuppur, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh, Pin No. 484224. Hall Mukam - Ward No.17, N.H. 122 Purani Basti Chhavani Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Offending Vehicle Trailer No. CG04/HB/9401) 2. Ashok S/o Dharam Lal Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o Through Aman Road Lines 1st Floor Valiya Complex Tatibandh Chowk Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. CG04/HB./9401) 3. Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Rama Trade Center 2nd Floor In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Thana Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No.CG04/HB/9401). ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellants : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.L. Singraul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 4/7/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.39/2018. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) for the death of Smt. Pramila Devi in accident dated 20.11.2017 which allegedly occurred on account of rash and negligent act on the part of non-applicant No.1 in driving trailer bearing registration mark CG04-HB- 9401 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’). It is averred that Smt. Pramila Bai was travelling in an Autorickshaw which was dashed by offending vehicle as a result she sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. It was further averred that deceased was 50 years of age at the time of accident, she was doing the work of sewing and embroidery, earning Rs.15000/- per months and due to her untimely death, the claimants have suffered loss of income. 3 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle proceeded ex-parte and reply on their behalf has not been filed. 4. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the accident from the offending vehicle, the claim application is not maintainable for non-joinder of driver, owner and insurer of auto; principle of contributory negligence attracts in present case; claimants were not dependent on the deceased. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and even there was no valid permit and fitness certificate in favour of offending vehicle. Thus, there was violation of essential conditions of insurance policy and therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the materials brought on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver, there was no element of contributory negligence and accordingly, allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,50,394/-. Since the Claims Tribunal has found that offending vehicle was plied on road in violation of conditions of insurance policy, the insurance company was exonerated from liability to indemnify the insured, but directed to first pay the amount of 4 compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that income of deceased has not been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. She next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in deducting one-half towards personal and living expenses of deceased and in applying multiplier of 13. She next contended that learned Claims Tribunal has gone wrong by not awarding amount towards loss of consortium to all the dependent members of deceased. Therefore, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case including impugned award. 9. The claimants/appellants has specifically claimed in the claim application that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing work of sewing and embroidery. This assertion is supported by oral testimony of the witnesses produced by appellants, but they failed to produce any 5 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 the deceased on notional basis by taking resort to minimum wage rate prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the relevant period and the area where deceased was residing, assessed her income as Rs.7,930/- per month. Hence, fixation of income on notional basis by the Claims Tribunal needs no interference. 10. The Claims Tribunal, keeping in view the age of deceased at the time of accident i.e. 50 years, has increased her income by 10% on account of future prospects, which is also in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, the Claims Tribunal recording that claimant No.2 and 3 being daughter of claimant No.1 cannot be treated as dependent of the deceased as they would be primarily dependent on their father and not on their grandmother i.e. deceased, and accordingly, deducted one-half towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, which is also in consonance with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinish Jain, reported in (2018) 3 6 SCC 619, and needs no interference. 11. Considering the deceased to be in the age group of 46 to 50 years the Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, report in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein it has been held that if the age of the victim is between 46 to 50 years, a multiplier of 13 is to be adopted. Thus, the multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal is in consonance with the standards laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), which does not call for any interference. 12. As regards arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that nothing has been granted by way of parental consortium to the appellants No.2 and 3, the said argument also deserves to be rejected as admittedly, the appellants are grandchildren of the deceased and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vinish Jain (supra) has categorically held that grandchildren being primarily dependent on their father, are not entitled to compensation. 13. Award of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is also in consonance with the principles stated by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and needs no interference. 7 14. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the amount of compensation computed and awarded by the Claims Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law, it cannot be said to be inadequate warranting any interference. 15. Accordingly, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI