1 2025:CGHC:22823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 308 of 2020 1 - Smt. Shanti Sarkar W/o Ashok Sarkar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Chirmiri ( Godripara ), Police Station Chirimiri, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Vinay Kumar Yadav S/o Bharat Lal Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Khutrapara, Police Station Surajpur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vishwanath Singh S/o Chatrapal Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sorga, Police Station Patna, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh (Driver ) 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Address Branch Office, Village, Post, Police Station Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : None present For Respondent No.3 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 10/06/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 27.08.2019 passed in Claim Case No.19/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.6,97,600/- as compensation in a death case. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 20.06.2018 Ajay Sarkar was coming from village Chirmiri to Village Babhana on his motor cycle. When he reached near the shop of Dhruwanath Tiwari at National Highway road, the offending truck bearing registration No.C.G.29-A-4009 which was coming towards Baikunthpur, driven by the respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Ajay Sarkar due to which he suffered severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 3. Appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.84,00,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years healthy young man and doing the work of mason and agriculture and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The appellant was dependent upon the deceased. Claimant had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to her like loss of future income, for love and affection and loss of consortium etc. 4. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 submitted reply and resisted the claim. The happening of accident with the offending vehicle was denied. It was pleaded that the application was filed on false ground exaggerating the amount of compensation. It was also pleaded that on the date of accident respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and there was no breach of policy condition and hence, in case, appellant is entitled for compensation, then respondent No.3 will be liable to pay the compensation. 3 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of the offending truck also denied the allegation made in the claim application. It was pleaded that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in this case in order to get the amount of compensation. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle on the date of accident. Application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. There was breach of policy condition and therefore, the respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the insured. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.6,97,600/- along with interest @ 8 per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month only overlooking the date of accident i.e. 20.05.2018. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. Appellant being mother of the deceased prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 -Insurance Company do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the 4 liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. He further submits that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 10. It is not in dispute that the date of accident is of 20.05.2018. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month only treating the nature of occupation of the deceased on the date of accident to be labourer. True it is that claimant could not able to prove the nature of employment as also the income of the deceased by producing clinching evidence. However, in the facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing in the State. The learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken the note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. Considering entirety of the facts of the case as also the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority prevailing from April, 2018 till September, 2018 and further considering that the deceased was resident of C-Zone I find it appropriate to take help of the minimum wages fixed for the unskilled labourer of C-zone as Rs.7,800/- per month for assessing the income of the deceased and accordingly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.7,800/- per month. 5 11. As on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 28 years, therefore, there shall be addition of 40% towards the future prospects, which has rightly been applied by the Claims Tribunal. Learned Claims Tribunal has also rightly applied the deduction of ½ towards personal living expenses and further applied the multiplier of 17, which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 12. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, however, no amount has been awarded towards loss of consortium. The award of loss of consortium has been held by Hon’ble Suprme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and further explained types of consortium in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. In case of Nanu Ram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the parents are entitled for loss of filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each and further it is held in the aforementioned decision that where the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is to be awarded, the claimant will not be entitled for loss of love and affection. As the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award any amount of towards loss of filial consortium, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded to the appellant under this head. It is ordered accordingly. 6 13. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income (Rs. 7,800x12) : 93,600.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 93,600.00 + 37,440.00 = 1,31,040.00 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,31,040.00 – 65,520.00 = 65,520.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 17 (65520 x 17) : 11,13,840.00 5. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 6. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 7. For loss of consortium to appellant : 40,000.00 Total compensation : 11,83,840.00 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,83,840.00. Any amount already paid to the appellant as compensation pursuant to the impugned award, shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram