1 2025:CGHC:59463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1842 of 2024 1. Smt Rashida Bano W/o Mohammad Usman Aged About 53 Years R/o Luchki Para, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Mohammad Usman S/o Late Sheikh Hussain Aged About 60 Years R/o Luchki Para, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku. Gullafza Bano D/o Mohammad Usman Aged About 22 Years R/o Luchki Para, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. Mohammad Imran S/o Mohammad Usman Aged About 30 Years R/o Luchki Para, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Ekkant Chandrakar S/o K.D. Chandrakar R/o 147 Ward No. 25, Shantrabadi, Gayatri Mandir Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver/ Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 15 D.M. 2989) 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Branch Office, Chouhan Tower, New Chandra Maurya Cinema, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. C.G. 15 D.M. 2989) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Siddhant Kumar Das, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None, though served For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.12.10 10:36:26 +0530 2 8-12-2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 219/2022 dated 21.2.2024 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 13,75,200/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Mohammad Aman. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 4.3.2022, the deceased was riding along with two others on motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-DH-7540. At about 00:10 am, when they reached Over Bridge near Dhamdha, the offending truck bearing registration No. CG-15-DM-2989 coming from opposite direction, dashed the motorcycle. In the accident, Mohammad Aman sustained injuries and died. Claimants, who are the parents and siblings of the deceased filed claim case. They pleaded that age of deceased was 28 years and he used to earn Rs. 2,60,000/- per annum. They claimed a total sum of Rs. 95,00,000/-. Driver and owner of offending vehicle remained ex-parte. Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments made in claim application. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and learned Tribunal passed the award. 3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased was a commission agent at Nazaruddin Netaji Company and used to 3 earn Rs. 20,000/- per month and the proprietor of the said firm, namely, Nazaruddin Khokhar (PW/2) has proved the income of the deceased. He further submits that Nazaruddin Khokhar has issued certificate Ex. P/10. He contends that learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 9,000/- which is at lower side and learned Tribunal has not awarded separate compensation towards loss of consortium. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He submits that claimants failed to establish that deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and a simple certificate was issued in this regard but no bank A/c details were furnished before the learned Tribunal to prove the income of the deceased. He further submits that proprietor, namely, Nazaruddin Khokhar (PW/2) also failed to place on record the attendance register or order of appointment to prove the appointment of deceased. He contends that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Admittedly, learned Tribunal assessed the notional monthly income of the deceased Rs. 9,000/- ignoring the certificate (Ex. P/10). Though it is pleaded that the deceased was working as a 4 Commission Agent at Fruit Wholesale Firm but copy of appointment order or bank A/c details have not been placed on record to substantiate transfer of salary, therefore a mere assertion would not establish that deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month working as Commission Agent. 7) The claimants as well as Nazaruddin Khokhar (PW/2) have deposed that deceased was an educated person working as a Commission Agent, therefore learned Tribunal ought to have treated him as semi-skilled labourer. The minimum wages admissible to semi-skilled labourer in the month of March, 2022 was Rs. 10,450/- per month and learned Tribunal should have considered that figure while computing the income of the deceased. 8) Furthermore, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 36,000/- to claimant No. 1 and 2 for loss of love and affection and Rs. 36,000/- to claimant No. 3 and 4 for loss of estate but no separate compensation towards loss of consortium has been awarded. However, under other conventional heads Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and same does not warrant any interference. 9) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is re- computing the compensation as below: 5 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 1,08,000/- (@Rs. 9,000 pm) Rs. 1,25,400/- (@Rs. 10,450 pm) 2. Annual Income adding Future Prospect Rs. 1,51,200/- (@25%) Rs. 1,56,750/- (@25%) 3. Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 75,200/- (@1/2) Rs. 78,375/- (@1/2) 4. Annual Income after applying Multiplier Rs. 12,85,200/- (@17) Rs. 13,32,375/- (@17) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000 + Rs. 18,000 = Rs. 36,000/- (to claimants No. 3 and 4) Rs. 18,000 + Rs. 18,000 = Rs. 36,000/- (to claimants No. 3 and 4) 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 7. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 18,000 + Rs. 18,000 = Rs. 36,000/- (to claimants No. 1 and 2) Rs. 18,000 + Rs. 18,000 = Rs. 36,000/- (to claimants No. 1 and 2) 8. Loss of Consortium NIL Rs. 1,76,000/- (Rs. 44,000 x 4) TOTAL Rs. 13,75,200/- Rs. 15,98,375/- 10) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.13,75,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,98,375/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,23,175/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days. 6 11) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a