1 2025:CGHC:35706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 499 of 2020 1. Smt. Chandrika, Wd/o Late Manak Lal Tandiya, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Korramatola, Police Station Khadgaon, Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Bhagbati, Wd/o Late Baran Lal Tandiya, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Korramatola, Police Station Khadgaon, Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. Kumari Devika, D/o Late Manak Lal Tandiya, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Village Korramatola, Police Station Khadgaon, Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4. Kumari Bhumika, D/o Late Manak Lal Tandiya, Aged About 15 Years, Minor And Presented Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Chandrika), R/o Village Korramatola, Police Station Khadgaon, Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5. Kumari Yuranik, D/o Late Manak Lal Tandiya, Aged About 13 Years, Minor And Presented Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Chandrika), R/o Village Korramatola, Police Station Khadgaon, Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6. Kumari Vedika, D/o Late Manak Lal Tandiya, Aged About 11 Years, Minor And Presented Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Chandrika), R/o Village Korramatola, Police Station Khadgaon, Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 7. Rupesh, S/o Late Manak Lal Tandiya, Aged About 9 Years, Minor And Presented Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Chandrika), R/o Village Korramatola, Police Station Khadgaon, Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Santosh Kumar Ravte, S/o Sarju Ram Ravte, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Chapatola, Police Station Khadgaon, Tahsil Manpur, District 2 Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Driver of Offending Vehicle Bus No. CG-08-M- 0223). 2. Smt. Manpreet Kaur, W/o Jashvinder, R/o. Qt. No. 7, HIG-3, Begharber, Sindhi Colony, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bus No. CG-08-M-0223). 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Offending Vehicle Bus No. CG-08-M-0223). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. Appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 19.07.2017 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.44/2016, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “the Act of 1988”) and awarded total sum of Rs.8,15,000/- as compensation. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal on the grounds as mentioned therein. 3. Motor accidental death of Late Manak Lal, date of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle driven by the non-applicant No.1, owned by non- applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3 is not disputed. 3 4. In above facts of the case, this Court is not adverting into the facts of the case as pleaded by the parties before the Claims Tribunal and only considering the submission of the respective counsels and the grounds pleaded in the appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 5. Counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation by assessing income of the deceased, much less than what he was earning, not awarding the compensation on other heads sufficiently and also not added income towards the future prospects. She further submits that first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the respondent No.3/insurance company, which is represented by the counsel, and therefore, the appeal be heard finally at motion hearing stage. 6. Counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company does not dispute the submission of the counsel for the appellant about the first liability upon the insurance company to satisfy the impugned award, he however, submits that the compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants is just and proper in the facts of the case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case. 8. Claimants in the claim application have pleaded that deceased was working as painter, also an artist in Doordarshan and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Perusal of the record would show that in support of the pleadings, claimants have examined claimant No.1 as AW-1, who in examination-in-chief has stated as per the pleadings made in the claim application. In cross- examination, she admitted that her husband was maintaining a diary towards his income and expenses, however, diary has not been produced in evidence 4 before the Claims Tribunal. No other witness is examined to prove the occupation and income of the deceased as pleaded in claim application. 9. Claimants have further submitted the certificates issued by the Collector Dhamtari, however, the author of the documents was not examined. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the evidence available on record, as also the pleadings, considered the occupation of the deceased to be skilled labourer and has assessed income of deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. From perusal of the evidence and the contents of the award would show that the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application by placing clinching and admissible evidence. 10. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal justified in taking recourse to assess income of the deceased notionally, however, Claims Tribunal has not discussed, as to what was the consideration for assessing income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. Income of deceased could have been considered taking note of the wages prevailing in the area of which the deceased was resident of, or by taking note of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As there is no suggestive evidence about the wages prevailing in the area, where deceased was residing, I find it appropriate to determine income of the deceased keeping in mind notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period of 01.04.2015 to 30.09.2015 (as the accident dated 19.07.2015). For that period, income of a skilled labourer is mentioned as Rs.6,229/- per month, and therefore, the income of the deceased is determined as Rs.6,229/- per month. 11. So far as the second submission made by the counsel for the appellant that the Claims Tribunal have not awarded compensation towards future prospects. The issue with regard to the award of future prospects has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance 5 Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and has observed that in case where the deceased was not in permanent employment/self employment and aged between of 40 to 50 years there shall be addition of 25% of the established income for computing the total income of the deceased. On date of accident deceased was 40 years of age, and therefore, there shall be addition of 25% of the established income to the income of the deceased. It is ordered accordingly. 12. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.60,000/- towards the loss of love and affection & estate and Rs.25,000/- towards the loss of consortium. The aforementioned award under the other conventional heads, is not according to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has specified the heads under which the compensation is to be awarded under other conventional heads and also quantified the same as Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. 14. Consortium has further been categorized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra), as loss of spousal consortium to the husband/wife, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents. Claimants are widow, mother and children of the deceased, and therefore, claimant No.1 will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of spousal consortium, claimant No.2 will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of filial consortium and claimants No.3 to 7 will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 6 15. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation requires recomputation, which is as under:- Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = Rs.74,748/- (Rs. 6,229 x 12) B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (Rs.74,748 x 25% = Rs. 93,435) C) Deduction of 1/5 towards personal and living expenses (Rs.93,435 x 1/5 = Rs.18,687; Rs.93,435 – Rs.18,687 = Rs.74,748) D) Multiplier of 15 Rs.74,748 x 15 = Rs.11,21,220/- Rs.11,21,220/- Loss of spousal consortium to appellant/claimant No.1, Loss of filial consortium to appellant/claimant No.2 and Loss of parental consortium to appellants/claimants No.3 to 7 (Rs.40,000 to each appellants/claimants) (40,000 x 7) Rs.2,80,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.14,31,220/- 16. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,31,220/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellants/claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. At this stage, counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company submits that as there is inordinate delay of 836 days in filing this appeal, therefore, it be directed that claimants will not be entitled for the interest for the delayed period. 7 18. Considering the submission of counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company, period of delay in filing of the instant appeal and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court Lakkamma Versus United Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is ordered that claimants shall not be entitled for interest for the delayed period of 836 days in filing appeal. 19. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA