1 2025:CGHC:42286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1447 of 2019 1 - Smt. Tikeshwari @ Rinki Yadav W/o Late Shri Mukesh Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Shanti Chowk Kpurani Basti, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Hall Mukam House Of Sanjay Yadu, Vaishnavi Colony, C/o Vijay Kashyap, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Dhansingh Thakur S/o Shri Amritlal Thakur R/o Gram Mandeli, Thana Chhura, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh...................(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bike Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04/kb-1479), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Hemsingh Netam S/o Shri Ramayan Netam R/o Gram Mandeli, Thana Chhura, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh...............(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bike Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04/kb-1479), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 21/08/2025 1. Records of the claim case is not available. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is filed in the year 2019 by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Motor-accidental death of Late Mukesh Yadav, involvement of the offending vehicle (motorcycle) in the accident, driven by the Non-Applicant No. 1 and owned by the Non-Applicant No. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2 is not in dispute. No factual dispute is involved in this appeal, he is only making a prayer that income of deceased to be assessed notionally in light of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority prevailing on the date of accident and the enhancement of the amount of compensation on other heads as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and therefore, for deciding this appeal, record of claim case may not be necessary. The submission made by the counsel for appellant is not disputed by the counsel for respondent, so far as the liability fastened upon by the learned Claims Tribunal, to satisfy the amount of compensation by the impugned award upon respondents. He further submits that in absence of proof of income, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month, notionally. 3. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the respective parties, I find it appropriate to decide this case at motion stage. 4. Appellant/Claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 24.12.2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim No. H-08/2016. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased husband of the claimant on the date of accident i.e. 30.03.2015 was working as Electrician and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, but the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month considering that no documentary proof has been placed on record to prove income as pleaded in the claim application. 3 He submits that in the above facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased taking note of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing on the date of accident which is much more than the income as assessed by Claims Tribunal. 6. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and the amount of compensation awarded on the other conventional heads is also on lower side and prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 opposes the submission of counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 9. So far as the assessment of the income of deceased, Claims Tribunal in para 18 of the impugned award have recorded a finding that the claimants failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove income of the deceased. This finding recorded by the Tribunal is not controverted by showing any documentary proof available in record to show that such finding is perverse in any manner and therefore, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the income as pleaded in the claim application is not proved, is on proper appreciation of the evidence brought on record. Hence, it is does not call for any interference. However, claims Tribunal fell into error in assessing the 4 income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. In case the claimant or the injured failed to prove income as pleaded in claim application by producing admissible piece of evidence, then, the Court/Tribunal could have taken note of the wages prevailing on the date of accident of the area in which, the deceased/claimant was resident of or could have taken note of the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 fixing minimum-wages for Unskilled Labourer. 10. As there is no suggestive piece of evidence with regard to the wages prevailing on the date of accident of the place of which, the deceased was resident of, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased taking help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority for a period from 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 in which, the wages fixed for Unskilled Labourer is Rs. 5,787/- per month. Therefore, I find it appropriate to determine the income of deceased on the date of accident as Rs. 5,787/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 11.In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme court has held that in death case, there shall be addition of 40% of the established income to the income of deceased where he was below 40 years of age and not in permanent employment. In case at hand, age of deceased as assessed by Claims Tribunal is 38 years and was not in permanent employment and therefore, I find it appropriate to add 40% of income to the established income of the deceased for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency. It is ordered accordingly. 12.Learned Claims Tribunal has applied deduction of 1/3rd and multiplier of 16 which is to the tune of decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme 5 Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and does not call for any interference. Claims tribunal has further awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the loss of estate and love and affection. The amount of compensation to be awarded under other conventional heads is also settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and has specified the heads as loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and it is quantified as Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-. In the above facts of the case, claimant being widow of the deceased would be entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 13.As this Court has awarded compensation towards loss of consortium, Claimant will not be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection as it subsumes the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076. 14.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Pranay Sethi (Supra) observed that the compensation awarded under other conventional heads like loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium is to be increased by 10% in every 03 years and therefore, I find it appropriate to increase 10% in the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads. It is ordered accordingly. 15. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 6 S. No. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/Dependency 5,787 X 12 = 69,444/- (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (69,444 X 40% = 27777.6) (69,444+ 27777.6 = 97,221.6) (C) Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses (97221.6 X 1/3rd = 32407.2) (97221.6 – 32407.2 = 64814.4/-) (D) Multiplier of 16 (64814.4 X 16 = 10,37,030.4/-) : Rs. 10,37,030.4/- 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 16,500/- 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 16,500/- 4. Loss of consortium to Claimant/Appellant @ Rs. 44,000/- : (+) Rs. 44,000/- Total Compensation : Rs. 11,14,030.4/- 16. Now, the Appellant/Claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 11,14,030.4/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 19. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey