1 2025:CGHC:17415 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 316 of 2020 1 - Smt. Bela Singh W/o Late Chatur Singh Aged About 22 Years Occupation Agriculture And House Wife Caste Gond R/o Village Sara, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Sahil Singh S/o Late Chatur Singh Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Bela Singh Wife Of Late Chatur Singh, R/o Village Sara, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Suraj Lal S/o Sahdeo Aged About 52 Years Occupation Agriculturist And Labourer, R/o Village Sara, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur , District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Manti W/o Suraj Lal Aged About 49 Years Occupation House Wife , R/o Village Sara, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Kumari Bimla Singh D/o Suraj Lal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sara, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - Brijesh Kumar Yadav S/o Sukhu Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Shankergarh, Police Station Shankergarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Balak Narayan S/o Ramswarth Yadav Aged About 32 Years Caste Ahir, Occupation Drivery, R/o Village Bachwar, Police Station Shankergarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh..(Driver), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Branch Office, Ambedkar Chowk Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 16/04/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties as also, the reasons assigned in the application, I.A. No. 01/2020 is allowed. Delay of 55 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. With the consent of parties, case is heard finally at the admission stage. 5. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 43/2018. 6. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 31.01.2018 at about 06:30 P.M., the offending Truck bearing registration no. CG 15 DB 9700 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Tractor of Chatur Singh from behind, caused accident. In the said accident, Chatur Singh suffered serious injuries and and he 3 succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, an F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 02/2018 was registered against the Respondent No. 2 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager sum as amount of compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4500/- per month overlooking the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by the appellants/claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 7000 p.m. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the wage structure prevailing, price index, cost of living and the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of parental consortium to the appellants who are children of the deceased, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. Hence, the compensation awarded be enhanced suitably. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case is just and proper. Hence, the impugned award does not call for any interference. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 & 2 opposes the submission of the counsel for the applicant and would support the order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. She submits that the 4 learned Claims Tribunal has awarded proper amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal and the copy of the award passed. 11. The short question involved in this appeal is with regard to seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 12. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove the nature of employment and the earnings of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 7000 per month by placing clinching and admissible piece of evidence. In absence of any admissible piece of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal has to take into consideration the price index, wage structure prevailing in the area where the deceased is residing or the learned Claims Tribunal can also take into consideration the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the purpose of ascertaining the income of the deceased. 13. In the case at hand, the claimants failed to prove the nature of employment and the monthly income of the deceased and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal has to calculate the income of the deceased on notional basis, as per the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority which, in the opinion of this Court, was not rightly considered. Hence, I find it appropriate to take the help of the minimum-wages notified by the competent authority, treating the deceased to be an unskilled labourer. The minimum-wages fixed for the unskilled labourer by the competent authority for the relevant period was Rs. 6,900/- per month. 5 14. Further perusal of the award would show show that the learned Claims Tribunal has added 40% of the assessed income towards the future prospects considering the age of the deceased as 24 years, which does not call for any interference and it is in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and has also, applied the multiplier of 17 which is also in the tune with the decision in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121. 15. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Further, the Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of spousal consortium of Rs. 40,000/- to the Appellant No. 1, Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium to the Appellants No. 2 to 4, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. According to the decision of Nanu Ram (Supra), the Appellants No. 2 to 4 are entitled for loss of parental consortium and filial consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each. 16. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 6 17. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.6,900/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 24 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.9660/- (6900+2760). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,15,920/- (9660 x 12). Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting one-fourth, annual loss of income of deceased would come to Rs.86,940/- (1,15,920 – 28,980). By applying multiplier of 17, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual income, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,77,980/- (86,940 x 17). Besides this, Appellants No.2 to 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards parental consortium and filial consortium, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance (Supra). Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.16,67,980/- (14,77,980 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 18. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 4 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 7 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 20. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey