Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Smt. Shakila Bano W/o Late Rashool Khan Aged About 45 Years MAC No. 897 of 2019 2 - Ku. Rukhsaar Parveen D/o Late Rashool Khan Aged About 25 Years Both are R/o Atal Bihari Bajpai Ward Kalipur, Jagdalpur, Disrtict- Bastar, Chhattisgarh................(Claimants). versus --- Appellants 1 - Pankaj Babariya Aged About 25 Years Caste Muriya, R/o Proprietor Me. Ciment Cariyer Satkar Complex Ring Road No.2 Bhanpuri Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle), 2 - Rakesh Mishara S/o Ashok Prashad Mishara Aged About 35 Years R/o Budwadhari Ward No.02 P.S. Badhsagar Sahdol Madhya Pradesh................. (Driver Of The Vehicle), 3 - The National Insurance Co.Ltd. Through The Branch Manager National Insurance Co.Ltd. Mandal Office Mobin Mahal Second Floor G.E. Raod Raipur, Chhattisgarh.............(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle). ….Respondents For Appellants For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No.3
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate : None present though served. : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 14/08/2025 1. Claimant/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.16 10:43:06 +0530 enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 05.12.2018 passed 2 in Claim Case No.53/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.9,77,200/- as compensation in a death case. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accident occurred on 01.01.2017, involvement of vehicle Truck bearing number MH-34AB-6504 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") owned by non-applicant No.1, driven by non-applicant No.2, non-applicant No. 3 being insurer and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation fastened up on non-applicant No. 3, is not in dispute. 3. 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 submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month only even after recording a finding that deceased was working as driver on the date of accident. Learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month as proved by employer Vikash Duggad (AW-3). 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and submit that learned Claims Tribunal accepted the pleadings and evidence brought on record by claimant that occupation of deceased was driver of light motor vehicle, 3 however, they failed to prove income as pleaded in the claim application, therefore, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. He also contended that award of 40% towards future prospects, application of deduction and multiplier is also correctly applied, hence, the amount of compensation needs no interference. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium to mother only and not to claimant No.2, who is sister of deceased. He submits that sister will also be entitled for compensation under head of loss of consortium. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 8. Claimants in their pleadings and evidence recorded before the Claims Tribunal have made statement that deceased while driving car was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. To prove the employment of deceased, claimants have examined Vikas Duggad (A.W.-3), owner of car, who in his evidence stated that he paid Rs.10,000/- per month to deceased, however, he had not produced any documents in this regard. In his evidence, he admitted that no vehicle is registered in his name. He is not maintaining records of payment to deceased nor making payment through bank. In the above facts of the case in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the evidence have rightly recorded a finding that deceased was working as driver on the date of accident, however, in absence of admissible evidence with regard to his wages/salary, assessed income on notional basis. The 4 said step taken by learned Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous, however, fell into error in not taking note of wages/salary of driver of light motor vehicle prevailing on the date of accident at the place of which, deceased was resident of and further minimum wages fixed in this regard by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act. In absence of clinching evidence to prove salary/wages of driver like deceased I find it appropriate to take help of notification issued by competent authority fixing wages of unskilled labourer, semiskilled labourer and unskilled labourer and according to the notification issued for the period from 01.10.2016 to 31.03.2017, the wages fixed for skilled labour was Rs.6,648/-. In the aforementioned facts of the case I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as Rs.6,648/- instead of Rs.6,000/-as assessed by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 9. So far as the second submission of learned counsel for appellant that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under head of loss of consortium to claimant No.3, sister of deceased is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has categorized and specified the heads under which the loss of consortium can be awarded, which is loss of spousal consortium to husband/wife, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents of deceased. In the aforementioned decision Hon’ble Supreme Court has not considered any compensation for loss of consortium to siblings. 5 10. For the foregoing discussions, the submission of learned counsel for appellants that claimant No.3 being sister of deceased is also entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium is not sustainable and it is repelled. 11. There is no dispute with respect to addition of 40% towards future prospect in the assessed income of deceased, deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses, application of multiplier of 18 and award of compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Hence, they are affirmed. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has further observed that there shall be increase of 10% on the amount of compensation awarded under the other conventional heads after every three years and therefore, the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly. 13. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 6,648 x 12 = 79,776.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future : 79,776.00 + 31,910 = 1,11,686.00 prospects 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal : 1,11,686.00 – 55,843.00 = 55,843.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 : 55,843 x 18 = 10,05,174.00 5. For loss of filial consortium to : 44,000.00 the appellant No.1. 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate Grand Total 6 : : : 16,500.00 16,500.00 10,82,174.00 14.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,82,174.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% 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