1 2025:CGHC:30350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1617 of 2019 1 - Laxman Singh Thakur S/o Gorakhnath Thakur Aged About 52 Years 2 - Smt. Devanti Thakur W/o Laxman Singh Thakur Aged About 46 Years 3 - Jitendra Singh Thakur S/o Laxman Singh Thakur Aged About 20 Years All are R/o Balepara Village Balud District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Mehraj Prasad S/o Rana Prasad Aged About 26 Years R/o Andheri Chowk Ward No. 02, Bacheli District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh........(Driver Of The Vehicle) 2 - Sunil Sahu S/o K. L. Sahu Main Market Bacheli District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh........(Owner Of The Vehicle). 3 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Branch Office M. M. Tower Gandhi Nagar, Ward Akaswani Road Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.......(Insurer) ….Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Karan K. Baharani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.15 17:57:32 +0530 2 Order On Board 03/07/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.03.2019 passed in Claim Case No.150/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.10,52,800/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.18,53,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Nilambar Singh Thakur, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 30.06.2018, Nilambar Singh Thakur was riding as a pillion passenger on a Bullet motorcycle being driven by his friend, Shankar Nag. They were travelling slowly from Dantewada to Jagdalpur to get the motorcycle repaired. At about 2:20 PM, when they reached near Pakhanar Chowk in the village of Dilmili, a truck bearing registration number CG-18D/1455, driven by Non-applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the direction of Kodenar and dashed their motorcycle from behind. As a result of the collision, Nilambar Singh Thakur fell onto the road and offending vehicle run over him, leading to his death on spot. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was working as computer operator and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants are dependent upon him and due to his untimely death they are facing great financial crises. 3 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and they were proceeded ex-parte. Non-applicant No.3 filed its reply resisting the claim of the claimants. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license. The offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy as there was no valid permit to drive the vehicle. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.10,52,800/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month only disbelieving the evidence that the deceased on the date of accident was working as Computer Operator in Shubham Computers, of which, proprietor/owner had also issued salary certificate, which is filed as Annexure A-10. He also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation under other conventional head. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation of deceased to be Computer Operator. Document salary certificate issued by the Shubham Computers was disbelieved because the evidence of Aniruddha Saha (A.W.-1) was not found reliable. He submits that the amount of 4 compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the record of claim case. 8. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellants with regard to assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, though there is pleading in the claim application that deceased was working as Computer Operator and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. To prove the income and occupation of deceased, the claimants examined Aniruddh Saha (A.W.-1), proprietor and owner of Shubham Computech. He stated that Nilambar Singh Thakur was employed in his establishment for computer-related work and typing and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/-. However, no documentary evidence or corroborative proof was produced to substantiate this statement. In absence of specific proof and evidence with respect to the occupation and income of the deceased, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, however, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- per month only as income of the deceased overlooking the date of accident as 30.06.2018. For assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing at the place where deceased was resident of. The learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by the competent 5 authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 9. In the case at hand, there is no suggesting piece of evidence to prove the wages given on the date of accident at the place where the deceased was resident of. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased treating him to be labourer taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for that period. The minimum wages fixed by the authority for the period from 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018 as Rs.8,100/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8,100/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. The deceased on the date of accident was 20 years of age as mentioned in the postmortem report, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, which is in consonance with the decision of of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction of 1/2 towards personal living expenses as the deceased was unmarried on the date of accident and the application of multiplier of 18 by the learned Claims Tribunal is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 12. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses and further has 6 awarded Rs.40,000/- only towards loss of consortium to the appellants. The 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 has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/ widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. The appellants 1 and 2 being parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 13. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 8,100 x 12 = 97,200.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 97,200.00 + 38,880.00 = 1,36,080.00 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,36,080.00 – 68,040.00 = 68,040.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 : 68,040 x 18 = 12,24,720.00 5. For loss of filial consortium to the appellants No.1 & 2 Rs.40,000/- each (40,000 x 2) : 80,000.00 6. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 7. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 Grand Total : 13,34,720.00 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,34,720.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the 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