Chattisgarh High Court
Ahilya Bai vs Saddam Hussain on 25 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:27666
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1279 of 2019
1. Ahilya Bai Wd/o Radhelal Shrivas Aged About 33 Years
2. Aniket Shrivas S/o Radhelal Shrivas Aged About 16 Years
3. Abhishekh Shrivas S/o Radhelal Shrivas Aged About 13
Years
4. Mamta Shrivas S/o Radhelal Shrivas Aged About 11 Years
5. Mansi Shrivas D/o Radhelal Shrivas Aged About 9 Years
Appellants No.2 to 5 are minor hence being represented by
their Mother A-1,
6. Ratanlal S/o Mukutram Shrivas Aged About 58 Years W/o
Ratanlal,
All are R/o Syahimudi, Tehsil- Katghora, District- Korba,
Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
7. Dhaminbai W/o Ratanlal Aged About 58 Years R/o
Syahimudi, Tehsil- Katghora, District- Korba,
Chhattisgarh.....................(Claimants), District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellants-claimants
versus
1. Saddam Hussain Hasmi S/o Md. Murtuza Hasmi R/o
Dahezwar, Police Station- Balrampur, District- Balrampur,
Chhattisgarh.......Vehical Driver.
2. Mahendra Pratap Singh S/o Shreenath Singh R/o Hig- 277,
Cghb Colony, Tatibandh, Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.........Vehicle Owner.
3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch
Manager, SADA Complex, T.P. Nagar, Korba, District- Korba
(CG)
2
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. P. Dutta, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
25/6/2025
1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District
Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated
28.1.2019 passed in Claim Case No.69/2017.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants-appellants filed
an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the
tune of Rs.21,05,000/- under various heads, for death of
Radhelal in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants,
who are widow, children and parents of deceased, on
21.7.2017 at about 4:40 p.m. Radhelal was returning in pick-up
from Bhanwartank, when he reached near Puraina Talab,
Village Jali, one truck bearing registration mark CG04-HY-
2174, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-
applicant No.1), dashed the pick-up vehicle and caused
accident. In the said accident, Radhelal sustained grievous
injuries and died on spot. It was further pleaded that deceased
3
was 34 years, working as Conveyor Belt Mistry and earning
Rs.12,000/- per month.
3. Non-applicant No.2-owner of offending truck filed reply to claim
application pleading that the driver of pick-up vehicle was also
responsible for the accident, hence the principle of contributory
negligence attracts in the present case. At the time of accident
non-applicant No.1-driver was having valid and effective
driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with non-
applicant No.3, therefore, if any compensation is awarded then
same is payable by non-applicant No.3.
4. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company also filed a separate
reply and took a stand that driver of offending vehicle was not
holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the
accident and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay
the compensation
5. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and
evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the
respective parties had arrived at a conclusion that accident
was the result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant
No.1-driver; there was no violation of any condition of
insurance policy. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal partly
allowed claim application and awarded compensation of
Rs.12,27,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. by taking
monthly income of deceased as Rs.5,000/- on notional basis.
4
6. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the
appellants in their application as also evidence have
specifically stated that deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per
month by working Conveyor Belt Mistry, however, the Claims
Tribunal disbelieved version of claimants for want of
documentary evidence and assessed monthly income of
deceased at Rs.5,000/- on notional basis, which is on lower
side. He submits that in absence of documentary proof,
income of deceased should have been assessed based on
price index, cost of living, wage rate prevailing at that point of
time or the wage notified under the Minimum Wages Act 1948.
He further submits that the Claims Tribunal has assessed
income of deceased without any addition on loss of future
prospects. He further submits that in case of Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the concept of consortium has
been categorized as spousal consortium for husband or wife of
victim, parental consortium for the victim’s son and daughter
as well as filial consortium for mother and father of the
deceased. Here, the Claims Tribunal has awarded lump sum
compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium, instead of
Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants who are widow, children and
parents of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal has also not
awarded compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’. Hence,
he prays that the amount of compensation awarded to
5
appellants be enhanced suitably.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents
opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellants and
submit that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just
and proper, which does not call for any interference.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the Claims Tribunal.
9. As regards the income of deceased, according to appellants,
the deceased was working as Conveyor Belt Mistry and earning
Rs.12,000/- per month, but no clinching evidence has been led
on behalf of appellants to substantiate the claim that deceased
was earning much more amount from doing said work. In
absence of any evidence, the Claims Tribunal has assessed
income of deceased at Rs.5,000/- on notional basis. The
reason assigned by the Claims Tribunal for fixing income of
deceased on notional basis appears to be justified, which does
not call for interference. However, the notional income so fixed
by the Claims Tribunal appears to be on lower side. It is well
settled that where claimants failed to produce documentary
evidence to prove income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal
should determine his income on the basis of wages prevailing
in area, price index, cost of living or can take help of the wage
rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act. In case at hand,
the Claims Tribunal, on guess work assessed income of
6
deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month but did not resort to
circulars/ notifications issued by the Competent Authority under
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notifying wage rate for skilled,
unskilled and high skilled workers and therefore, fixation of
income of deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month by learned Claims
Tribunal is not proper.
10. Accident in question occurred on 21.7.2017 and at that
moment, deceased was residing in District Bilaspur. On the
date of accident, wage rate fixed for a unskilled labourer of the
area falling within ‘B’ Zone by the Competent Authority under
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was Rs.7,930/- per month. Thus
it is clear that the Claims Tribunal has taken lesser notional
income of deceased. Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to
re-assess notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,930/- p.m.
instead of Rs.5,000/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is
ordered accordingly.
11. The Claims Tribunal has provided future prospects to the
extent of 50%, which is not correct. In case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680, future prospects in case of self-employed or fixed
wages have been provided to the extent of 40% for a person
below 40 years. In case at hand, as per pleadings in claim
application, deceased was 34 years of age at the time of
accident and was self-employed. Hence, appellants are entitled
7
for addition of 40% towards future prospects. It is ordered
accordingly.
12. Impugned award further reveals that while computing the
compensation, the Claims Tribunal has awarded only
Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to the claimants. The amount
of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed
by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of
consortium” as laid down in the matter of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others,
(2018) 18 SCC 130, according to which each claimant is
entitled to consortium under spousal, filial and parental
respectively in case claimants are wife/husband, parents and
children at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Hence, I deem it
appropriate to award an amount of Rs 40,000/- each to
appellants, who are widow, children and parents of deceased,
for loss of spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium
respectively. It is ordered accordingly.
13. Further, the Claims Tribunal awarded lump sum amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of love and affection’. In the case of
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @
Satwinder Kaur, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that Loss of Consortium
8
subsumes Loss of Love and Affection. Therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal was not
justified in awarding compensation towards ‘loss of love and
affection’ to the claimants. Once the spouse of the deceased is
compensated under head ‘loss of consortium’, which includes
loss of love and affection, there cannot be any separate award
under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. Hence, amount
awarded by Claims Tribunal for loss of love and affection
requires to be deducted from the total awarded compensation.
It is ordered accordingly.
14. It can be seen that the compensation on account of “funeral
expenses” has been awarded as Rs.25,000/- but no
compensation on account of “loss of estate” has been awarded.
Whereas, in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- each is required to be
awarded as compensation for “funeral expenses” and “loss of
estate”. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellants are entitled for
Rs.15,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate.
15.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of
compensation payable to the claimants/appellant.
16.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,930/- per
month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, the
monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.11,102/- and
annual income would be Rs.1,33,224/-. Out of this amount,
9
one-fifth is to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses of deceased and after deducting one-fifth, annual
dependency would come to Rs.1,06,579/-. Applying multiplier
of 16, as applied by Claims Tribunal on the basis of age of
deceased mentioned in the postmortem report, the loss of
dependency would be Rs.17,05,264/- (99918×16). Besides
this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/-
towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 to 5 are entitled
for Rs.40,000/- each for loss of parental consortium and
appellant No.6 & 7 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for loss of
filial consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants
are entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses
and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of
compensation comes to Rs.20,15,264/-. This amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of
application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions
mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any
amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award
will be adjusted.
17.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Digitally
SYED signed
ROSHAN by SYED
ZAMIR
ALI
ROSHAN
ZAMIR Sd/-
ALI
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-