1 2025:CGHC:59199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 663 of 2021 1 - Husneara Ansari W/o Late Farukh Ansari Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kadora, Outpost Doura Police Station Pasta, District : Balrampur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 2 - Sultana D/o Late Farukh Ansari Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian, Mother / Appellant No. 01 Husneara, R/o Village Kadora , Outpost Doura Police Station Pasta, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sahil S/o Late Farukh Ansari Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian, Mother / Appellant No. 01 Husneara, R/o Village Kadora , Outpost Doura Police Station Pasta , District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants Versus 1 - Durga Bus Service Proprietor Abhay Kumar Gupta S/o Brijbihari Prasad Gupta, Aged About 26 Years, R/o House No. 23/k, Bhatapara, Behind Manipur School, Durga Bus House Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh--------- (Owner) 2 - Somaru Ram S/o Lahru Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kotdih, Post Doura, Outpost Doura Police Station Pasta, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh------ (Driver) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Kurukshetra (353602) Sahni Nursing Home Building Pipali Road, Kurukshetra Haryana-------- (Insurer) 4 - Noorjahan Iraqi W/o Mohd. Qayum Iraq Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Kadora, Outpost Doura Police Station Pasta, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ------- (Claimant No. 4) 5 - Mohd. Qayum S/o Mohd. Ismail Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kadora, Outpost Doura Police Station Pasta, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh---- (Claimant No. 5) ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company For Other Respondents : : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate None Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.12.08 16:21:08 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 05/12/2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balrampur at Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 48/2018 dated 03.02.2020, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.9,83,200/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Farukh Ansari. 2. The claimants/appellants No. 1 to 3 are widow and children of deceased- Farukh Ansari and claimants No. 4 and 5 are parents of the deceased (Respondents No. 4 and 5 herein in the present appeal). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that deceased- Farukh Ansari was a Conductor in offending Bus bearing registration No. DL-1 / PC-3221. On 24.06.2018, the said offending Bus was being driven by respondent No. 2 namely Somaru Ram. The owner of offending Bus was respondent No. 1 namely Durga Bus Service Proprietor Abhay Kumar Gupta and it was insured with respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. The driver of Bus by driving it in a rash and negligent manner brought it into contact with high-voltage wire near Village Kotsari, resultantly, Farukh Ansari sustained injuries and died. 4. Mr. Pavas Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that deceased Farukh Ansari was a Conductor in Bus bearing registration No. DL-1/PC-3221. He would submit that on 24.06.2018, driver of the said Bus by driving it rashly and negligently and thus Bus came into contact with high-voltage wire, 3 resultantly, Farukh Ansari sustained injuries and died. He would submit that the deceased was semiskilled labour as he was Conductor in offending Bus, but the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- which is at lower side. He would further contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation 15% for future prospect, whereas age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal should have granted 40% compensation for future prospects. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to grant compensation for loss of consortium to claimants No. 2 to 5. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would oppose. He would submit that the claimants have failed to prove the income of the deceased. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation, therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants No. 1 to 3 deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 7. The deceased was working as Conductor in the offending Bus. Due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Bus, deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- which is at lower side. In absence of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix prevailing on the date of accident. As the deceased was a Conductor, the learned Claims Tribunal should have treated him semiskilled labourer and the 4 minimum wages admissible to semiskilled labour in the month of June 2018 was Rs.8,750/-. Further the learned Claims Tribunal has added 15% amount for future prospect, whereas the figure should have been 40% according to the law laid down in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further the compensation for loss of consortium has not been awarded to the children and parents of the deceased. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium along with additional 20% amount as accident occurred in the month of June 2018 and 06 years have already passed. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration. 8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, this Court is computing the compensation and same is being revisited herein below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.6,000/- per month Rs.8,750/- 2. Future prospect 15% Rs.900/- + Rs.6,000/- = Rs.6,900/- (Future prospect 40%) Rs.3,500/- + Rs.8,750/- = Rs.12,250/- 3. Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.6,900 – Rs.2,300= Rs.4,600/- per month Rs.12,250 – 4,083 = Rs.8,167/- per month 4. Per month Income of the deceased Rs.4,600/- Rs.8,167/- 5. Annual Income of the deceased Rs.4,600/- x 12 = Rs.55,200/- per annum Rs.8,167 x 12 = Rs.98,004/- per annum 6. Multiplier of 16 Rs.55,200/- x 16 = Rs.8,83,200/- Rs.98,004/- x 16 = Rs.15,68,064/- 5 7. Loss of consortium to wife/claimant No.1 Rs.50,000/- Rs.40,000/- 8. Loss of love & affection and Loss of estate Rs.35,000/- Rs.15,000/- 9. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 10. Loss of consortium to children & parents i.e. claimants No. 2 to 5 (claimants No. 4 & 5 i.e. respondents No. 4 & 5 in the present appeal) - Nil - Rs.48,000/- x 4= Rs.1,92,000/- Total : Rs.9,83,200/- Rs.18,30,064/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.9,83,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.18,30,064/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.9,83,200/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.8,46,864/-. The concerned respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti