1 2025:CGHC:37892 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 188 of 2021 1 - Govind Das Tamrakar S/o Late Ramnarayan Tamrakar, Aged About 58 Years R/o. Lodhipara, Old Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pramod Kumar Tamrakar, S/o Govind Tamrakar, Aged About 30 Years R/o. Lodhipara, Old Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shradhha Tamrakar, D/o Govind Das Tamrakar, Aged About 25 Years R/o. Lodhipara, Old Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Tularam Tandan S/o. Awadhram Tandan, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sendri, Mopka Road, P.S. Bhatapara, District Balodabazar (Chhattisgarh)............ (Vehicle Driver), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - C.C.R. Logistic Private Ltd. Manager, Rajesh Kumar Pandey S/o. Bhola Prasad Pandey, Aged About 52 Years, Office Satkar Complex, First Floor, Ring Road No. 2, Bhanpuri, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 2nd Floor, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, P.B. No. 122, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Sajal Gupta, Advocate SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 01/08/2025 1. Appellants/Claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MAC No. 871/2017. 2. The motor accidental death of late Krishna Kumari Tamrakar due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no. CG 04 HX 3309 by the Non-Applicant No. 1, owned by the Non-Applicant No. 2 and insured by the Non-Applicant No. 3 is not in dispute. Liability fastened upon the Non-Applicants to satisfy the amount of compensation jointly and severally as also, the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company is also not in dispute. Therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of case and is only dealing with the grounds raised seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month overlooking the age of the deceased as 58 years and doing business of Kirana Shop. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of consortium to the claimants who are widower and children of the deceased. Hence, the amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission of counsel for appellants/claimants. However, he do not dispute the submission of the counsel for appellants about fastening of liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. He however, submits that the claimants/applicants failed to prove, nature of occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application, therefore, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the deceased on notional basis. Amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 6. Perusal of claim application would show that the claimants had pleaded, occupation of the deceased as doing business of Kirana Shop and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. To prove the pleadings made in the claim application, claimants have examined Claimant/Applicant No. 3 as AW -1. No other witness is examined by the claimants to prove the nature of occupation and the income nor have submitted or exhibited any documents proving the fact that the deceased was running a Kirana Shop. In absence of any admissible or clinching piece of evidence brought on record by the claimants to prove the occupation and income of the deceased as pleaded in the claim application, in the opinion of this court, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the deceased on notional basis. 7. However, Claims Tribunal fell into error in not taking note of minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place of which, deceased was resident of and other factors like price index, cost of 4 living, wage structure and could have also taken the help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As there is no suggestive piece of evidence in record to show minimum-wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place of residence of the deceased, therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of the deceased keeping in mind minimum-wages as fixed and notified by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Deceased was stated to be resident of Bilaspur which falls within ‘B’ Zone area and minimum-wages as fixed and notified by the competent authority for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 was Rs. 8,190/- per month and therefore, I find it appropriate to determine income of the deceased as Rs. 8,190/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal added 10% of the assessed income towards the future prospects, applied deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and multiplier of 9 which is to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 which does not call for any interference. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the Applicant No. 1 which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). However, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of consortium to the Claimants No. 2 & 3, children of the deceased. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. 5 Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130, Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the types of consortium as spousal consortium for widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In case at hand, the Appellants/Claimants No. 2 & 3 are children and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium (total Rs. 80,000/-) respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 10.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Pranay Sethi (Supra) observed that the compensation awarded under other conventional heads like loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium is to be increased by 10% in every 03 years and therefore, I find it appropriate to increase 10% in the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads. It is ordered accordingly. 11.For the foregoing reasons, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. S. No. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/Dependency 8190 X 12 = 98,280 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 10% (98,280 X 10% = 9828) (98,280+ 9828 = 1,08,108) (C) Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses (1,08,108 X 1/3rd = 36,036) (1,08,108 – 36,036 = 72,072/-) (D) Multiplier of 9 (72,072 X 9 = 6,48,648/-) : Rs. 6,48,648/- 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 16,500/- 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 16,500/- 6 4. Loss of consortium to Claimant/Appellants @ Rs. 44,000/- each (44,000 X 3) : (+) Rs. 1,32,000/- Total Compensation : Rs. 8,13,648/- 12. Now, the Appellants/Claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 8,13,648/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 15. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey