1 2025:CGHC:36581 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 93 of 2021 1 - Kripal Singh S/o Shri Ramdhan Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Madhwamoha, Podi, Police Station And Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandrika Bai W/o Shri Kripal Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Madhwamoha, Podi, Police Station And Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Preeti Kumari D/o Shri Kripal Singh Aged About 17 Years Through Next- Friend (Father) Kripal Singh S/o Shri Ramdhan Singh R/o Village Madhwamoha, Podi, Police Station And Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ram S/o Shri Kripal Singh Aged About 15 Years Through Next- Friend (Father) Kripal Singh S/o Shri Ramdhan Singh R/o Village Madhwamoha, Podi, Police Station And Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Jagdish Prasad S/o Ram Dihal Vind Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhaiswar (Wrongly Typed As Baishwar) Police Station Ghorawal (Wrongly Types As Ghorawala), District Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh Current Address Pandey Road Line, Kabir Chowk, Kushmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ravi Shankar Dubey S/o Vijaynath Dubey, R/o Kushmuda, Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Transport Nagar Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Azad Siddique, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 28/07/2025 1. Upon posing query to the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, he fairly submitted that in the impugned award, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Non- applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. 2. Appellants/Claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 05.12.2020 passed by learned 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in MACT No. 52/2017. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 27.02.2017 at around 06:40 P.M., Suresh Kumar Koram along with his nephew Omprakash was going towards his home from Pali on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 12 AG 1902 and when he reached near Vinayak Hospital T.P. Nagar, a Trailor bearing registration no. CG 04 JB 1325 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) driven by the Non-Applicant No. 1/Respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of Suresh Koram from behind and caused accident. In accident Suresh Koram and Omprakash suffered grievous injuries and both died on the spot. Subsequent to accident, an F.I.R. was registered against the Non-applicant No. 1 bearing Crime No. 48/2017, P.S. Pali, District - Korba for offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Claimants have filed claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on date of accident, 3 deceased Om Prakash was aged about 20 years working as Electrician and earning Rs. 8000/- per month, claimed Rs.16,05,000/- as compensation along with an interest of 12% per annum. 4. There was no representation on behalf of Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2, hence they were proceeded ex parte. 5. Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company filed separate reply pleading that the Non-Applicant No. 1 on the date of accident, was not possessing valid and effective driving license, there was breach of conditions fo insurance policy. Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidences brought on record fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company and awarded Rs. 10,08,340/- as compensation to the applicants/claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the Claims Tribunal has not considered minor brother and sister of the deceased to be dependents, but only the parents as dependent upon the deceased. It is further submitted that learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of ½ instead of 1/3rd occupation and income of the deceased is not properly assessed but determined on notional basis, treating deceased to be an Unskilled Labourer. Amount of compensation awarded towards loss of consortium is only to Applicant No 1/Claimant and not all the three claimants and further, compensation towards the conventional heads is also on lower side. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 would oppose the submission made by the counsel for appellant and would submit that compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts of case. He 4 contended that Claims Tribunal considered Claimants No. 3 & 4/Siblings are dependent on their father. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 10.Perusal of the pleadings made in application would show that the claimants have pleaded, occupation of the deceased to be Electrician and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. To prove the said pleading, claimants have examined father of deceased as AW -3. In his evidence, he orally stated about occupation and income of the deceased. No other independent witness was examined nor any document was placed before Claims Tribunal to prove income. 11.In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased notionally considering occupation of deceased to be one of Unskilled Labourer. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 6,206/- per month which is in accordance with notification issued by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period from 01.10.2016 till 31.03.2017 because, date of accident was 27.02.2017. Learned Claims Tribunal correctly determined income in the facts of case. 12.Learned Claims Tribunal further added 40% towards the future prospects and applied multiplier of 18 which is also to the tune of decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121. 13.So far as the pleadings made in appeal raising ground that there shall be deduction of 1/3rd instead of ½ is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme 5 Court in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) has issued guidelines for application of deduction and multiplier. In para 32 of the aforementioned decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the deceased is unmarried, survived by parents and siblings, mother would be considered as dependent and 50% would be treated as personal and living expenses and 50% as contribution to the family. It is also observed that if the family of a bachelor is large and dependent upon income of the deceased like in case where mother is widow and large number of younger non-earning brothers and sisters, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to 1/3rd and contribution to the family would be taken as 2/3rd. 14.In case at hand, father of deceased in his evidence admitted that two children were dependent upon him and he is maintaining them by working and earning as Labourer. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it is apparent that the father of deceased/Claimant No. 1 is an earning member and therefore, in the opinion of this court, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction of ½ which is to the tune of decision in case of Sarla Verma (Supra). For the foregoing discussion, ground raised in memo of appeal by the appellants of the application of 1/3rd instead of ½ is not sustainable and hence, it is repelled. 15.So far as the prayer for enhancement of the amount of compensation on other conventional heads is concerned, Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of consortium. The award of compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is also as per settled law in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). In the 6 aforementioned case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has specified the heads as loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It is quantified as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-. 16.The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to only one Claimant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130 has held that where the claimants are parents, both of them will be entitle for compensation under the head of loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. However, considering the date of passing of the award on 05.12.2020, I am of the considered view that the claimants will be entitled for the increase of 10% of the compensation to be awarded under the other conventional heads as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). 17. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants:- S. No. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/Dependency : Rs. 9,38,340/- 2. Funeral Expenses (15,000 + 10%) : (+) Rs. 16,500/- 3. Loss of Estate (15,000 + 10%) : (+) Rs. 16,500/- 4. Loss of filial consortium to Claimant/Appellants (40,000 + 10%) @ Rs. 44,000/- each (44,000 X 2) : (+) Rs. 88,000/- Total Compensation : Rs. 10,59,340/- 18. Now, the Appellants/Claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,59,340/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest 7 @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 19. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 20. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 21. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey