Janki Dhruv Vs Amit Kumar Ratre

Aanand Ram Dhruv S/o Late Jhangaram Dhruv Aged About 57 Years R/o Jail Colony, Central Jail Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Appellants-Claimants

¶11

versus

¶12

Amit Kumar Ratre S/o Dilesh Ratre Aged About 31 Years R/o Dhabadeeh, P.S. Bhatapara Gramin, District - Balodabazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Vehicle Car No. C.G. /22/t/5124)

¶13

Prabhu Dayal Kuree S/o Daau Lal Kuree Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Electricity, R/o Shanti Chowk, Rasaida, P.S. - City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Vehicle Car No. C.G. /22/t/5124)

¶14

Branch Manager Chola M.S. Journal Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office R/o Front Of Vinayak Netralay, Vaipar Vihar Road, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Vehicle Car No. C.G. /22/t/5124)

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Appellants : Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 &2 : None though served. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

¶17

2

¶18

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

14/08/2025

¶21

This appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') vide award dated 11.7.2023 in Claim Case No. 1531/2021.

¶22

Since the death of deceased in a road traffic accident dated 8.8.2021, involvement of offending vehicle Car bearing registration No.CG22-T-5134, which was driven by nonapplicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3, in said accident is not in dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on the question of enhancement of quantum of compensation.

¶23

Learned counsel for appellants would submit that this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by impugned award on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal determined income of deceased, aged about 23 years, as Rs.7,800/- per month only overlooking date of accident i.e. 8.8.2021, nature of occupation of deceased and income as pleaded in claim application. He contended that if minimum wage for an unskilled labourer is to be considered then also

¶24

3

¶25

as per Notification issued by the Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 minimum wage for unskilled labourer of Zone-B area of the State, would be Rs.9,460/-. Hence, he prays that the amount of compensation awarded be enhanced suitably.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3Insurance Company would submit that the Claims Tribunal minutely analyzed the evidence available on record and arrived at a conclusion that claimants failed to prove occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in claim application and therefore, learned Claims Tribunal was justified in fixing income of deceased on notional basis, which cannot be said to be erroneous finding. He next contended that compensation computed and awarded is just and proper.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

¶28

So far as submission of learned counsel for appellants that income of deceased as assessed by learned Claims Tribunal is less, is concerned, perusal of pleadings made in claim application would show that claimants have pleaded that deceased was student as also doing private job and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Since claimants failed to prove occupation of deceased and income therefrom as per law, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to assess income of deceased on notional basis. Approach adopted by

¶29

4

¶30

learned Claims Tribunal for assessing income of deceased on notional basis cannot be faulted with. However, looking to wage rate fixed by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period during which accident occurred and for the area where deceased was residing, fixation of Rs.7,800/- as monthly income of deceased appears to be on lower side. Accident occurred on 8.8.2021 and deceased was resident of District Bilaspur, which comes within Zone 'B' area. On the date of accident, wage rate of an unskilled labourer of Zone-B area of the State, prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was Rs.9,460/- per month. Thus, I find it appropriate to fix monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,460/- in place of Rs.7,800/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In view of the fact that deceased was 23 years old bachelor, addition of 40% towards future prospects, deduction of onehalf towards personal and living expenses of deceased and application of multiplier of 18 by the Claims Tribunal to compute the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is in terms of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and the same needs

¶32

5

¶33

no interference. Likewise, compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate with increase of 10% is also in terms of decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and it also need no interference.

¶34

For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.

¶35

Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.9,460/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, total income comes to Rs.13,244/-. Thus, annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.1,58,928/-. Out of this amount, one-half is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased being bachelor and after deducting one-half, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.79,464/-. By applying multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 14,30,352/-. Besides this, appellants being parents of deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- each towards filial consortium, and Rs.16,500/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate, as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. They are also entitled for a sum of Rs.16,500/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, total amount of compensation Rs.15,51,352/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of

¶36

6

¶37

filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶38