-1- 2025:CGHC:38989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 145 of 2021 1 - Sanjay Kumar Rathor S/o Late Gopal Prasad Rathore Aged About 46 Years 2 - Sandeep Pathor S/o Late Gopal Prasad Aged About 40 Years 3 - Ramkumari W/o Late Gopal Prasad Rathore Aged About 62 Years All Caste Rathore, R/o Kanhaiband Post Sivani Tahsil Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh .. Appellant(s) versus 1 - Deepak Kumar Sarthi S/o Chhotelal Aged About 30 Years R/o Kohdiya (Tarhi) Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Harnarayan Agrawal S/o Shrinivas Agrawal Caste Agrawal, R/o T. P. Nagar Korba, And District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 – ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited ICICI Lombard House 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi Mumbai 400025 ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Utkal Pradhan, Advocate For Resp No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.19 11:32:10 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 06 /08/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this appeal is heard finally at motion stage. 2. This is claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (CG) vide award dated 14.01.2020 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.37 of 2019. 3. As this appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, involvement of offending vehicle Hywa No.CG-12-C- 1237, motor accidental death of Gopal Prasad Rathore and liability fastened upon respondent No.3/non-applicant No.3 being insurer of offending vehicle is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.3, this Court is not discussing the facts as pleaded in the claim application, written statements and discussed by the Claims Tribunal in its award in detail and only considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month overlooking the pleadings made in the claim application, that deceased was running electronic shop and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Compensation awarded under other -3- conventional heads is also on lower side. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded consortium to claimant No.3/widow of deceased and not awarded loss of consortium to claimants No. 1 & 2 who are sons of deceased. He prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation accordingly. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that amount awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 7. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants with regard to assessment of income as Rs.5000/- per month by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, undisputedly, date of accident is 11.02.2016. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded the occupation of deceased of running business of electronic shop and his income to be Rs.20,000/- per month. True it is that claimants have failed to prove income of deceased by placing admissible evidence, however, in absence of admissible evidence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased considering the factors like cost of living, price index, wage structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. -4- 8. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, for the period from 01.10.2015 to 31.03.2016 in which monthly wages for ‘unskilled labourer’ has been fixed as Rs.5860/- per month. Hence, looking to the date of accident i.e. 11.02.2016, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.5860/- per month instead of Rs.5000/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal has applied deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, multiplier of 5 which is to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of spousal consortium' to claimant No.3/wife of deceased only. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 has specified other conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, funeral expense and loss of consortium and also quantified the amount as Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. In case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 further specified types of consortium and it was held that there are three types of consortium i.e. ‘loss of spousal consortium’ to -5- wife/husband, ‘loss of parental consortium’ to children and loss of ‘filial consortium’ to parents of the deceased. As claimants No. 1 & 2 are children of the deceased they will also be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘parental consortium’ . It is ordered accordingly. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be increased by 10% in every three years and, therefore, compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ to be awarded to claimants has to be increased by 10%. 12. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income (A) Income 5860 x 12 = 70320 (B) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (70320 x 1/3 =23440) 70320- 23440 = 46880 (D) Multiplier of 5 46880 x 5 = 2,34,400 : Rs. 2,34,000 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 16,500 3 Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 16,500 4. Loss of parental consortium of Rs.44,000/- each to appellant/ claimants No.1 & 2 (children) (40,000 + 10% = 44,000) (44,000 x 2 = 88,000) : (+) Rs. 88,000 -6- 5. Loss of spousal consortium of Rs.44,000/- to appellant/ claimant No.3 (wife) (40,000 + 10%= 44,000) : (+) Rs. 44,000 Total compensation : Rs. 3,99,000 13.Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- instead of Rs.2,70,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 14. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 15. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen