1 / 7 2025:CGHC:13816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 247 of 202 0 1. Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Late Govind, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kenapara, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2. Jaiprakash Gupta S/o Late Govind Prasad Gupta, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kenapara, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3. Ved Prakash Gupta S/o Late Govind Prasad Gupta Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kenapara, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Aditya Kashyap @ Shalu S/o Siyaram Kashyap, Aged About 24 Years R/o Navapara Near Manoj Garage, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.................Driver, 2. Swarn Lal Ekka S/o Late Silbanus Ekka, R/o Ward No. 9, Navapara, In Front Of Government College, Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh...............Owner 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Main Road, Beside Kejriwal Complex, Surajpur, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh..............Insurer --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 22/03/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 20.12.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (for PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 56/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 6,75,000/- as compensation in death case. 2. Fact of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 07.01.2019 at 5.00 p.m., Govind Prasad Gupta was going home from village Chattidaand on his bicycle, non-applicant No.1 driver of Mahindra vehicle No. CG 04 MJ 0208, while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, hit the bicycle of Govind Prasad Gupta near Chota Pul on the main road, due to which Govind Prasad suffered serious head injuries. He was immediately taken to Primary Health Center Vishrampur. Thereafter, due to the severity of his injuries, he was taken to Holy Cross, Hospital, Ambikapur for treatment and after being referred from there, he was admitted to DKS Hospital, Raipur. He was admitted there from 08.01.2019 to 11.01.2019 and died during treatment on 11.01.2019. 3. Appellants, being widow and sons of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs. 18,86,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was 48 years old, he was an able bodied person doing the work of Mason, from which he used to earn a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- to support himself and his family. 4. Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 have filed reply, denying the pleadings made in the application, it is further pleaded that the appellants have overestimated the amount of compensation. Apart from this, in the additional pleading, the non- applicants have shown that the offending vehicle is insured by non-applicant No. 3 and at the time of accident the driver had a valid license and have pleaded that in the event of an award being passed in favour of the appellants, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount. 3 / 7 5. Non-applicant 3/ Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company has filed its reply and denied the pleadings made in the application. It was further pleaded that though the offending vehicle was insured under the conditions mentioned in the policy, but the said accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased Govind Prasad and the appellants have also estimated the compensation on a hypothetical basis by exaggerating it. It is also pleaded that at the time of the accident, non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective license to drive the said vehicle, hence the insurance company is not liable for compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Govind Prasad Gupta died due to injuries suffered by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant 1. There was no breach of conditions of the insurance policy, contributory negligence was not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicants jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation, fixed primary responsibility of non-applicant No. 3 to satisfy the award, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 6,75,000/- as total compensation with an interest @ 8% p.a. to be paid within 30 days from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the appellants No. 2 & 3, who are major and earning sons of the deceased, to be dependent upon the deceased which is erroneous in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Birendra reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month overlooking the date of accident ie., 07.01.2019 and also the age of deceased to be 48 years. Even if the deceased is considered to be working as labourer the income of the 4 / 7 deceased has to be assessed based on the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority in absence of any proof of income by the claimants, which will be much more than that of what learned Claims Tribunal has assessed. He contended that if the children of the deceased are major sons are to be taken to be dependent upon the deceased, the deduction ought to have been 1/3 instead of ½ and therefore the impugned award be suitably enhanced. 8. Respondent No. 1 is reported to be unserved. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 would oppose submission made by learned counsel for appellants. 10. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company upon whom the liability is fastened to pay the amount of compensation would also oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that the the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Court. He contended that major and earning sons of the deceased cannot be treated to be dependent on the deceased father and there is no error in such a finding in the impugned award. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of claim case. 12. Sofar as the ground raised by learned counsel for appellant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal against death of husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants No. 2 & 3 that the appellants No. 2 & 3 are major and earning sons are not treated as dependent upon the deceased. Computation of award by applying multiplier system in a case where claimant is/are major earning son(s), claiming compensation against death of his/her parents was considered by Hon’ble 5 / 7 Supreme Court in the case of Birendra (supra), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased” can move application for compensation under Section 166(1)(c) of the Act of 1988. Even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be bounden duty of Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal heirs are fully dependent on the deceased or not. 13. In the case at hand, learned Claims Tribunal excluding the appellants No. 2 & 3 for getting the amount of compensation against the death of their father has only considered them to be major and earning sons which in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision is erroneous and not sustainable. Hence, the said finding is set aside and it is held that the major and earnings sons are also entitled to get the compensation. 14. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellants No. 2 & 3 who are major married and earning sons are entitled for amount of compensation then the deduction applied by the Claims Tribunal of ½ is also not sustainable considering the fact that there are three claimants and the deduction of 1/3 has to be applied as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 15. Sofar as the submission of learned counsel for appellants with respect to income of the deceased is concerned, undisputedly, on the date of accident ie., 07.01.2019 deceased Govind Prasad Gupta was an abled body person aged about 48 years. Though the appellants has pleaded the occupation of deceased to be a Mason, however, the occupation of the deceased and his monthly income is not proved by the appellants by bringing cogent and acceptable piece of evidence. In the said facts of the case, even if in absence of nature of occupation and proof of income, the income of 6 / 7 deceased is to be assessed on notional basis considering that atleast the deceased ought to have been working as a labourer for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. As the income of deceased and wages of labourer within the district Surajpur where the deceased was residing and working is also not proved, therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to take the wages fixed by the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Raipur for the year 2017-18 issuing a notification. The minimum monthly wages fixed by the Labour Commissioner for Class-A city is Rs. 8320/- per month for unskilled labourer. True it is that the Surajpur does not fall within the A-Class city, however, considering that the accident occurred in the year 2019 ie., after two years of issuance of notification, therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased to be Rs. 8320/- per month instead of Rs. 6000/- as held by Claims Tribunal. 16. In the case at hand, deceased was 48 years of age on the date of accident as held by Tribunal, hence, there will be addition of 25% of established income in the income of deceased for assessing total income of deceased for purpose of calculating compensation as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for amount of compensation on other conventional heads as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 17. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants as under. 18. Income of deceased is assessed as Rs. 8320/- per month ie. Rs. 99,840/- per annum. Upon adding 25% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to 7 / 7 Rs. 1,24,800/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to Rs.83,200/-. Upon applying multiplier of 13 to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as the deceased was about 48 years of age on the date of accident, total loss of dependency will come to Rs. 10,81,600/- [Rs.83200x13]. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 19. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs. 12,31,600/- [Rs.10,81,600 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000] instead of Rs.6,75,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 20. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn