PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1. Gurla Kishtaiya S/o Bapu v. 1. Shahil Khan @ Shahir Khan S/o Ajad Khan, R/o Village And Post Bhopalpattanam
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:42042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1242 of 2019 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1. Gurla Kishtaiya S/o Bapu Rao Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Post Timed, Police Station Bhopalpattanam, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Gurla Laxmi W/o Gurla Kishtaiya Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post Timed, Police Station Bhopalpattanam, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants versus 1. Shahil Khan @ Shahir Khan S/o Ajad Khan, R/o Village And Post Bhopalpattanam, Tahsil Bhopalpattanam, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. (Driver cum Owner) 2. Branch Manager The National Insurance Company Limited, Near Head Post Office, Upper Side of Central Bank, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents/ Non-applicants
Legal Reasoning
correctly applied by the Tribunal, on which there is no dispute. He lastly contended that the compensation under the head of other conventional 3 / 6 heads is to be increased by 10% in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that claimants failed to prove income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application by placing admissible evidence before the Tribunal, therefore, Tribunal justified in assessing income on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 7. Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with regard to assessment of income of deceased as ₹ 5,000 per month on the date of accident is concerned, the occupation and income of deceased is pleaded to be working as labourer, earning ₹ 8,000 per month. To prove occupation and income of deceased, appellant No.1, father of deceased is examined as AW-1. 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 treating him to be working as unskilled labourer. If for any reason claimants failed to prove income of deceased by admissible evidence then also the Tribunals or Courts are required to assess income of deceased/ injured keeping in mind certain factors like age of deceased, date of accident, cost of living, price index and wages prevailing on the date of accident in the area of which deceased was resident and can take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent 4 / 6 authority for the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer. Claims Tribunal fell into error in not taking into consideration these factors. 8. As there is no material in the record 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 Bijapur. As per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.03.2017 till 31.10.2017 for unskilled labourer of C-Zone area is ₹ 6,206/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of deceased on the date of accident is determined as ₹ 6,206. It is ordered accordingly. 9. So far as the other submission made by learned counsel for appellants- claimants with regard to award of loss of consortium is concerned, perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium. 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, explained types of consortium, that is to be awarded to the claimants, as loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents of the deceased of ₹ 40,000/- each. In the case at hand, appellants are parents of deceased, therefore, they are entitled for loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Further, there shall be addition of 40% towards future prospects, deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses, multiplier of 18, funeral expenses of ₹ 15,000 and loss of estate of ₹ 15,000, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 5 / 6 11. As far as other submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be increased by 10% in every three years, and therefore amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be ₹ 16,500 from ₹ 15,000, loss of estate would be ₹ 16,500 from ₹ 15,000, and loss of consortium would be ₹ 44,000 each from ₹ 40,000. 12. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Compensation ₹ 9,38,358/- Particulars • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 74,472/- (₹ 6206x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 74,472 + 40% of ₹ 74,472 = ₹ 1,04,261) • Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,04,261 x 1/2= ₹ 52,131) • Multiplier of 18 ₹ 52,131 x 18 = ₹ 9,38,358/- Loss of filial consortium to Appellants ₹ 88,000/- (₹ 44,000 x 2) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 10,59,358/- 13. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 10,59,358/- instead of ₹ 7,86,000/- 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. 6 / 6 • Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Arguments
____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None appeared, though served. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 20/08/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 13.12.2018 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 61/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part, awarded total sum of ₹ 7,86,000/- as 2 / 6 compensation in motor accidental death case, fastened liability of satisfying the award upon non-applicants jointly and severally. 2. This appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accidental death of Late Jayant Gurla, aged about 20 years son of claimants, in an accident occurred on 13.03.2017 at about 05:00 pm, involvement of another vehicle motorcycle bearing number CG18-L-2679 (hereinafter referred to as “offending motorcycle”) owned and driven by non-applicant No. 1, as well as liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicants jointly and severally and first liability upon non-applicant No. 2 being insurer is not in dispute. 3. In the above facts of the case, this Court is not entering into factual aspect of the case in detail, pleadings made by the claimants in their claim application, reply filed by non-applicants therein and discussed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award, however, only considering the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that on the date of accident dated was aged about 20 years, he was working as labourer and earning ₹ 8,000 per month, however, Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as ₹ 5,000 per month only. He contended that wages of unskilled labourer on the date of accident was much more than what is assessed by the Claims Tribunal and therefore Claims Tribunal ought to have considered income of deceased as ₹ 8,000 per month. He next contended that Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to claimants, parents of deceased. He however submits that the application of deduction, multiplier and the award of future prospects are