PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1. Ganga Bai W/o Siyaram v. 1. Saroj Kumar S/o Durjan Shrote Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Chaitma, Police
Case Details
1 / 9 2025:CGHC:41145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGRH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 688 of 2021 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1. Ganga Bai W/o Siyaram Sonwani Aged About 36 Years 2. Siyaram Sonwani S/o Sitamber Sonwani Aged About 37 Years 3. Mukesh S/o Siyaram Sonwani Aged About 19 Years All are R/o Village Parsada, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Saroj Kumar S/o Durjan Shrote Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Chaitma, Police Station Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Driver of Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 12 S 1900) 2. Nobit Kumar S/o Ramdular Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Dipka, Police Station Dipka, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Owner of Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 12 S 1900) 3. he New India Insurance Company Limited Through Division Manager Through Divisional Office Shriram Trade Center, Old Bus Stand, In Front of Rajiv Plaza Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 12 S 1900) --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 695 of 2021 1. Ishwari Bai Wd/o Late Dharmendra Garhewal Aged About 27 Years
Legal Reasoning
2. Mahi D/o Late Dharmendra Garhewal Aged About 6 Years Appellant No. 02 is Minor through the Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt. Ishwari Garhewal, Appellant No. 01 3. Mishri D/o Late Dharmendra Garhewal Aged About 2 Years Appellant No. 03 Is Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt. Ishwari Garhewal, Appellant No. 01 4. Smt. Keshar Bai W/o Kalicharan Garhewal Aged About 60 Years 5. Kalicharan Garhewal S/o Tulsiram Garhewal Aged About 62 Years 2 / 9 All are R/o Village Parsada, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Appellants/applicants-claimants Versus 1. Saroj Kumar S/o Durjan Shrote Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Chaitma, Police Station Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh.........(Driver of Vehicle Trailer No. C. G. 12 S 1900) 2. Nobit Kumar S/o Ramdular Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Dipka, Police Station Dipka, District Korba Chhattisgarh ......(Owner of Vehicle Trailer No. C. G. 12 S 1900) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Division Manager, Through Divisional Office-Shriram Trade Center, Old Bus Stand, In Front of Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh .......(Insurer of Vehicle Trailer No. C. G. 12 S 1900) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants-Claimants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 14/08/2025 1. As both these appeals arise out of same accident, they are heard together and dispose of by this common order. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the impugned award dated 15.09.2021 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Cases No. 916/2019 & 928/2019, whereby Claims Tribunal allowed the applications filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) by the applicants in part and awarded ₹ 9,67,200 in claim case No. 916/2019 and ₹ 14,15,200 in claim case No. 928/2019 as total compensation. 3 / 9 3. Both these appeals are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as ₹ 6,000 per month only overlooking the date of accident, occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application of the deceased and not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the claimants. 4. Motor accident occurred on 23.07.2019, involvement of vehicle trailor bearing number CG12 S 1900 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”), driven by non-applicant No. 1, owned by non-applicant No. 2 and insured by non- applicant No. 3 is not in dispute. The finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal of exonerating the insurance company from its liability for want of effective fitness certificate on the date of accident and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicants No. 1 & 2, driver and the owner of offending vehicle, is also not in dispute. Therefore, this Court is not discussing the facts in detail with regard to accident and the liability as held by Claims Tribunal in the impugned award, however, only considering the grounds raised seeking enhancement of compensation and the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties in this regard. In MAC No. 688 of 2021 5. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants would submit that claimants in their claim application have specifically pleaded that deceased aged about 22 years was working as tile fitter and earning ₹ 25,000 per month, but the Claims Tribunal erroneously assessed his income on notional basis as ₹ 6,000 per month only. He contended that compensation under the head of loss of consortium is not awarded to the claimants and the compensation under other conventional heads is also not appropriately awarded, therefore, prays for enhancement of compensation of amount suitably. 4 / 9 6. Learned counsel for respective respondents would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that in absence of prove of occupation and income of deceased Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed income notionally as ₹ 6,000 per month, which does not call for any interference. Amount of compensation awarded is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 8. The date of accident was 23.07.2019, even if the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that claimants failed to prove occupation and income of deceased is accepted as it is then also it is duty upon the Tribunal to assess income notionally keeping in mind 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 a resident and can also consider minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer. 9. In the case at hand, as there is no suggestive evidence in record to arrive at a conclusion with regard to daily wages of the labourers prevailing in the area where the deceased was a 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. As per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.04.2019 till 30.09.2019 for unskilled labourer for B-Zone area is ₹ 8,660/- per month. Therefore, monthly income of claimant on the date of accident is assessed as ₹ 8,660. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Claims Tribunal has further awarded ₹ 45,000 (₹ 15,000x3) towards loss of love and affection to all the three claimants and ₹ 15,000 towards funeral expenses apart from the compensation under the head of loss of dependency of ₹ 9,07,200. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National 5 / 9 Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has specified heads on which the compensation under other conventional heads is to be awarded ie., loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium and quantum fixed as ₹ 15,000, ₹ 15,000 and ₹ 40,000 respectively. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 of Hon’ble Supreme Court, loss of consortium has been categorized 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 has held that compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is subsumed in compensation towards loss of consortium and therefore claimants will not be entitled for compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal under loss of love and affection, however, claimants No. 1 and 2 will be entitled for compensation of ₹ 40,000 towards loss of filial consortium. In view of above, claimants will also be entitled for compensation of ₹ 15,000 towards loss of estate. 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 enhanced by 10% in every three years. Therefore, amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be increased to ₹ 16,500 from ₹ 15,000, loss of estate would be increased to ₹ 16,500 from ₹ 15,000, and loss of consortium would be increased to ₹ 44,000 each from ₹ 40,000. 12. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. • Annual Loss of income = ₹ 1,03,920/- (₹8660x12) ₹ 13,09,392/- Particulars Compensation 6 / 9 • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40%; ₹ 1,03,920 + 40% of ₹ 1,03,920= ₹ 1,45,488 • Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses= (₹ 1,45,488 x 1/2= ₹ 72,744); • Multiplier of 18 (₹ 72,744 x 18 = ₹ 13,09,392) Loss of filial consortium to Appellants No. 1 & 2 (₹ ₹ 88,000/- 44,000 x 2) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 14,30,392/- 13. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 14,30,392 instead of ₹ 9,67,200 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 of the impugned award imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. In MAC No. 695 of 2021 14. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants submitted that the Claims Tribunal erroneously assessed income of deceased- Dharmendra Gadhewal on notional basis as ₹ 6,000 per month only though claimants in their claim application have specifically pleaded occupation of deceased aged about 30 years to be working as Mason, earning ₹ 20,00 per month. It is also submitted that compensation under the head of loss of consortium is not awarded to all the claimants but for claimant No. 1 of ₹ 40,000 only and the compensation under other conventional heads is also not appropriately 7 / 9 awarded, therefore, prays for enhancement of compensation of amount suitably. 15. Learned counsel for respective respondents would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that in absence of prove of occupation and income of deceased Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed income notionally as ₹ 6,000 per month, which does not call for any interference. The amount of compensation awarded is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 16. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with regard to assessment of income of deceased is concerned, date of accident was 23.07.2019, even if the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that claimants failed to prove occupation and income of deceased is accepted as it is then also it is duty upon the Tribunal to assess income notionally keeping in mind 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 a resident and could have also considered minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer. 17. As per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.04.2019 till 30.09.2019 for unskilled labourer for B-Zone area was ₹ 8,660/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of claimant on the date of accident is assessed as ₹ 8,660. It is ordered accordingly. 18. Perusal of impugned award would show that Claims Tribunal after computing amount of compensation of ₹ 14,15,200 has further apportioned it between claimants, applicant No. 1, applicants No. 2 & 3, applicant No. 4 and applicant No. 5. Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹ 15,000 each under the head of loss of estate/ love and affection, ₹ 15,000 towards 8 / 9 funeral expenses and ₹ 40,000 towards loss of consortium to claimant No. 1 only. Claimant No. 1 is widow, claimants No. 2 & 3 are children and claimants No. 4 & 5 are parents of deceased. Claimants will not be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, however, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra) they will be entitled for compensation of ₹ 40,000 each under the head of consortium as loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1 being wife, loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2 & 3 being children and loss of filial consortium to appellants No. 4 & 5 being parents of deceased. It is ordered accordingly. Claimants will also be entitled for ₹ 15,000 towards loss of estate, ₹ 15,000 towards funeral expenses. 19. 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. Therefore, amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be increased to ₹ 16,500 from ₹ 15,000, loss of estate would be increased to ₹ 16,500 from ₹ 15,000, and loss of consortium would be increased to ₹ 44,000 each from ₹ 40,000. 20. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. • Annual Loss of income = ₹ 1,03,920/- (₹8660x12) ₹ 18,54,972/- Particulars Compensation • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40%; ₹ 1,03,920 + 40% of ₹ 1,03,920= ₹ 1,45,488 • Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses= (₹ 1,45,488 x 1/4= ₹ 36,372); ₹ 1,45,488 - ₹ 36,372 = ₹ 1,09,116 • Multiplier of 17 (₹ 1,09,116 x 17 = ₹ 18,54,972) Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 ₹ 44,000/- 9 / 9 Loss of parental consortium and loss of filial ₹ 1,76,000/- consortium to Appellants No. 2 to 5 (₹ 44,000 x 4) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 21,07,972/- 21. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 21,07,972 instead of ₹ 14,15,200 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 of the impugned award imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 22.
Decision
In the result, both the appeals filed by appellants-claimants are allowed in part and the impugned awards are modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge