1 2025:CGHC:58846 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 566 of 2024 1 - Chainkumar S/o Bhagela Ram Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Sundri, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Sammat Bai W/o Bhagela Ram, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sundri, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Pravin Kumar S/o Chain Kumar Chaturvedi, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sundri, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Mansa Ram S/o Chainkumar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sundri, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Aarti S/o Shri Chainkumar Chaturvedi, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sundri, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Santosh S/o Chainkumar Chaturvedi Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sundri, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 7 - Minor Yanshika D/o Chainkumar Chaturvedi, Aged About 12 Years Through Legal Gaurdian Father Chainkumar S/o Bhagela Ram Chaturvedi, R/o Village Sundri, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Atish Kerketta S/o Late Athnal Kerketta, Aged About 26 Years R/o Kandra Bahar, (Tongo Toli) Mohalla, Police Station Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 (Driver Alleged Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 Jb- 5985) 2 - Lokant Sahu S/o Late Satya Prakash Sahu, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Beltikril, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Owner Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04jb-5985 3 - Roshan Pratap Singh S/o Rajendra Pratap Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Doutra, Post Office Janai, Raibareli, P.S. Mahrajganj, Distric- Raibareli (U.P.) Present Address Indira Colony Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Driver Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Mini Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04-E-6961) 4 - Prabha Sharma W/o Late Premal Sharma, Aged About 65 Years R/o Indira Colony Baloda Bazar, Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Owner Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Bus Mini Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04-E-6961) 5 - Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor M.N. Silver, Plaza In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road Number Raipur, District Raipur (Cg.) (Insurer Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Mini Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04-E-6961) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. A. D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No.5 : : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate Ms. Vinita Dubey, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 04/12/2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation, challenging the award dated 01.03.2024 passed in Claim Case No. 114/2022 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar–Bhatapara, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted 3 compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,53,264/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of the death of Arvind @ Raja Chaturvedi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that on 14.09.2022 at about 8:30 hrs, the deceased was waiting on the roadside for a bus at Kodva Bus Stand. At that point of time, a bus bearing registration No. CG-04-E-6961, parked dangerously on the middle of the road, an offending truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JB-5985, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed the standing bus, resultantly, the deceased Arvind sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. 3. Mr. Kuldeep, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would argue that the claimants filed the claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein they pleaded that the age of the deceased was 25 years old at the time of accident and he was working as a tailor. He would further argue that the learned Tribunal treated the deceased as an unskilled labourer and fixed his notional income at Rs. 9,540/- per month, as the claimants failed to adduce documentary evidence, which is on the lower side. He would contend that the learned Tribunal should have treated the deceased as a skilled labourer. He would also contend that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium; thus, he prays for enhancement of award accordingly. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submit that the claimants did not produce documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was running a tailor shop; no bills or documents were filed and no independent witness was examined. They contend that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 6. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was a tailor but failed to adduce documentary evidence to prove this fact. They also failed to examine any independent witness, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly treated the deceased as an unskilled labourer and computed his income according to the minimum wage matrix prevailing on the date of the accident; hence, the contention made by Mr. Kuldeep that the learned Tribunal should have treated the deceased as a skilled labourer cannot be accepted. 7. The learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants. A perusal of the claim application shows that the parents, major siblings and minor sister filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The major siblings (claimant Nos. 3 to 6) are not entitled to compensation for loss of consortium. However, the parents and the minor sister of the deceased are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company ltd. v. Pranay Shethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the claimants (mother, father & minor sister of the deceased) shall be entitled to get compensation for loss of consortium as under:- Head Awarded by the learned Tribunal Awarded by this Court Loss of Consortium None Appellants No.1, 2 & 7 44,000 x 3 = 1,32,000/- Total Rs. 1,32,000/- 5 9. In view of the above calculation, the the appellants/claimants No.1, 2 & 7 shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 1,32,000/-. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation Rs. 1,32,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum to the appellants No.1, 2 & 7 within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and condition of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim