MAC No v. Dullu Ram Yadav

For Appellants : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 25/07/2025 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for appellants and pleadings made in the application, I.A. No. 01/2024 is allowed and the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally.

Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated

23.08.2023 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 58/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 12,11,000/- as compensation in motor accidental death case.

Motor accident occurred on 07.03.2020 at about 04:00 p.m. near village Metavada by the truck bearing number CG04 CZ 2577 driven by non- applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently and death of Prembati Kashyap (deceased) in motor accident, is not in dispute. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the arguments raised by the counsel for respective parties. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that he is not raising any undisputed facts and only seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, claiming income of deceased to be fixed by the competent authority notionally and also the award of compensation under loss of consortium to be on lower side. He also submits that deduction is made 1/2 whereas in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, it would be 1/3 as claimant No. 1 is spouse.

Learned counsel for the respective respondents submit that the amount of compensation computed and awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, hence, it does not call for any interference. In absence of prove of income, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income on notional basis.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case.

Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with regard to assessment of income of deceased on the date of accident is concerned, the occupation and income of deceased is pleaded to be working as labourer and earning ₹ 8,000 per month, however, admittedly, there is no clinching and admissible piece of evidence available in record to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal justified in taking recourse to assess income of deceased on notional basis, however, fell into error in not taking into consideration factors like age of deceased, date of accident, cost of living, price index and wages prevailing on the date of accident ie.,of the year 2016, in the area of which deceased was resident and has not considered minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer and assessing her income as ₹ 7,500/- per month

As there is no material to suggest the wages prevailing at the place where the deceased was resident of, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing within the State of Chhattisgarh. Deceased was resident of village Ghatlohanga, Jagdalpur, and as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.10.2019 till 31.03.2020 for unskilled labourer for C-Zone area is ₹ 8,600/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of deceased on the date of accident is assessed as ₹ 8,000, as pleaded by the claimants in their claim application. It is ordered accordingly.

Further perusal of award would show that the Claims Tribunal has correctly added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects as the deceased was below 40 years and further awarded ₹ 15,000 towards loss of estate, ₹ 15,000 towards funeral expenses and ₹ 40,000 has been awarded towards loss of consortium to appellant No. 1, which are to the tune of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC

Tribunal has applied multiplier of 18 which in the facts of the case is also correctly applied and is in the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), however, Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of 1/2. According to the decision in case of Sarla Verma (supra), where the deceased was married and number of claimants are 2 to 3, there shall be deduction of 1/3. Accordingly, I find it appropriate to apply deduction of 1/3 instead of 1/2 as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Learned Tribunal further erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of filial consortium to appellants No. 2 and 3, parents-in-law of deceased. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, has held that apart from awarding loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, children and parents of the deceased will also be entitled for loss of consortium under the head of loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium respectively. In the case at hand, appellants No. 2 & 3 are parents, therefore, they are also entitle for loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly.

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 enhanced by 10% in every three years and therefore amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be ₹ 16,500, loss of estate would be ₹ 16,500, and loss of consortium would be ₹ 44,000 each.

For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Compensation ₹ 16,12,800/- Particulars • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 96,000/- (₹ 8000x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 96,000 + 40% of ₹ 96,000 = ₹ 1,34,400) • Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,34,400 x 1/3= ₹ 44,800); ₹ 1,34,400 - ₹ 44,800 = ₹ 89,600/- • Multiplier of 18 ₹ 89,600 x 18 = ₹ 16,12,800/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 Loss of Filial consortium to Appellants No. 2 & 3 ₹ 44,000/- ₹ 88,000/- (₹ 44,000 each) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 17,77,800/-

Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 17,77,800/- instead of ₹ 12,11,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. 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 as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact.