1 2025:CGHC:56223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1024 of 2020 1. Smt. Hemin Bai W/o Bramhalal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mlkunwar, Post Narratola, Police Station Dondi, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Bramhalal Tarm S/o Late Nandlal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Mlkunwar, Post Narratola, Police Station Dondi, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. Ku. Veena D/o Bramhalal Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Mlkunwar, Post Narratola, Police Station Dondi, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4. Ku. Daneshwari D/o Bramhalal Aged About 17 Years No. 04, Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Appllant No. 01, R/o Village Mlkunwar, Post Narratola, Police Station Dondi, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants (s) versus 1. Ajay Nayak S/o Panchuram Nayak Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 58, Vikasnagar, Kusmunda, Police Station Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh ......(Owner And Driver), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. The Divisional Manager United India General India Company, Division Office Mharaja Chowk, Zone-1, Vivekanand Nagar, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh ..........Insurance Company, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants (s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.12.10 11:33:55 +0530 2 19/11/2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the 1st Additional Claim Tribunal, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 129/2018 in case of Smt. Hemin Bai & Others Vs. Ajay Nayak & Another. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that on 18.06.2018 deceased Kushal Kumar Ravte along with his friend Pradeep Ravte was going to discharge his duty at Jaiswal Briks Industries there all of a sudden the vehicle Pick up 407 No. CG-12A.R. 7242 rashly and negligently driven by the driver of the vehicle and dashed them, as a result of which multiple injuries were caused to them which resultant by death of Kushal Kumar Ravte. It is also case of the claimants that on account of said accident a criminal Case No. 43 of 2018 was registered against the respondent No.1. It is also case of the claiments, that the deceased was 19 years old and he was earning Rs. 12,500/- PM because of unfortunate death of the deceased the claimants have filed the claim case before the tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor vehicle Act. 3. The respondent No.1 has filed the written statement denying the fact that the vehicle was driven by the deceased rashly and negligently. It has also been contended that motorcycle was also ensured which was driven by the deceased carelessly therefore, it is case of contributory negligence, as such Insurance Company of the motorcycle should be arrayed as party to the case. 3 4. The Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the fact but they not disputed that the vehicle Pick up was not insured with them and plea regarding fundamental breach of condition has been taken by them and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Learned Tribunal considering the evidence, material on record has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 7,000/- per month since the deceased was aged about 19 years and accordingly he has applied multiplier of 18 and accordingly calculated the compensation to the tune of RS. 10,88,400/- with interest from 05.12.2018 till the actual award is satisfied @ 9 % per annuam. Being aggrieved with the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal. The Appellant/claimants have preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the deceased was survived by mother, father and two younger sisters, therefore, they are entitled to get consortium as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others in 2018 (18) SCC 130. He would further submit that claims tribunal without consideration the relevant material on record has taken income of the deceased on lower side, therefore, compensation should have been increased by this Court as per the actual minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident and would pray for enhancement of compensation amount. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance company would submit that learned claims tribunal has not committed any illegality in granting 4 the compensation and it is well settled legal position of law that compensation should be just and proper not a bonanza, therefore, award passed by the tribunal does not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court as the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper would pray for dismissal of the appeal. To substantiate her submission, she has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Bhoori bai vs. Gopal Singh reported 2024 Supreme (Online) MP 13295, Smt. Kiran Sharma and others vs. Ramgopal Gurjar (deleted) and others reproted 2025 Supreme (Online) MP 2028 and Smt. P.Vijaya vs. J. Srinivas reported 2025 Supreme (Telangana) 927. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Submission made by counsel for the claimants is that the compensation has been passed on lower side is being considered by this court. It is not in dispute that the Insurance company is unable to dislodge the finding that the deceased was working as unskilled worker in the factory and minimum wages of the unskilled worker was Rs. 8400/- per months at the relevant time but the claiments have not placed any record before the tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,500/- PM. In absence of any sufficient material placed on record by the claimants to prove the earning of the deceased, learned claims Tribunal should have considered the compensation on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at the relvant time, therefore, the award deserves to be modified and the compensation has to be calculated @ treated salary of the deceased employee to Rs. 8,100/-. So far as 5 relevant factor is concerned, it has rightly applied 18 which is in accordance with the law as law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharla Verma (supra). Thus the claimants are entitled to get compensation on the earning of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 12,24,720/-. 10. Further submission of the counsel for the appellants that consortium has not been passed towards mother, father and both the younger sisters is concerned, this is against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the issue of consortium and stated as follows:- “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9SCC 54]. 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband- wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 6 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. ..................……………… 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium. 11. Considering the above stated legal position, the mother, father are entitled to get filial consortium Rs. 44,000/- each as parental consortium with interest of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. Thus, the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 12,24,720 +88,000/- which comes to Rs. 13,45,720/- and the claim Tribunal has already granted compensation of Rs. 10,88,400/- with interest of 9%. As such the claimants are entitled to get additional compensation as awarded by the claims Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 2,57,320/- with 9% interest within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 12. The appeal is allowed in part by modifying the award as stated above. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh