1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1049 of 2018 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mohba Bazar, Maruti Heights, 4th Floor, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh................ (Non-Applicant No. 3). --- Appellant. versus 1 - Narad Ram Satnami S/o late Shri Hemrai Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Thana Kharora, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh............. (Claimant). 2 - Bisendra Kumar Dhritlehre S/o Shri Arjun Lal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Thana Kharora, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.............(Non Applicant No. 1). 3 - Amrit Lal Dhritlehre S/o Shri Arjun Lal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Thana Kharora, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 2). --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Animesh Pathak appears on behalf of Shri Amrito Das, Advocates. MAC No. 1142 of 2018 1 - Narad Ram Satnami (Died and deleted) vide Court order dated 27.01.2026, through Lrs:- AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.20 18:27:16 +0530 2 1 (a) - Rajulal Rai S/o Narad Ram Satnami Aged About 40 Years. 1 (b) Laldas Satnami S/o Narad Ram Satnami Aged About 32 Years. Both are R/o House No. 25, Satnami Para, Ward No. No.2, Devgaon Khawna Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.). ---Appellant. Versus 1 - Bisendra Kumar Dhritlahare S/o Arjun Lal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Devgaon PS & Tahsil Kharora District Raipur C.G. (Driver). 2 - Amrit Lal Dhritlahare S/o Arjun Lal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Devgaon , Police Station And Tahsil Kharora District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Owner ). 3 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd ., Through - Claim Manager , Office - 5th Floor, Simran Tower, Near G E Road Railway Crossing And R.K. Mall, Mohaba Bazar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer ). --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Swapnil Thawaney appears on behalf of Shri PR Patankar, Advocates. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Animesh Pathak appears on behalf of Shri Amrito Das, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 08/04/2026 1. Since both above captioned appeals arise out of the same impugned award and accident, they are taken up analogously for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3 MAC No. 1049 of 2018 2. This Appeal has filed by the appellant/ Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) against the award dated 03.01.2018 passed by the Fourth Additional Claims Tribunal Raipur to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.279/2016. 3. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 and Section 140 of the Act and awarded a total sum of Rs.4,45,800/- by way of compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Yogesh Rai in a vehicular accident. 4. As per the claimants, on the date of accident i.e. 06.01.2016 at about 08:00 pm falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dharsiva District Raipur C.G., near village Nagargaon, Respondent No.2 drove vehicle namely Tata 207 bearing registration No.CG-04-JB-1114 (hereinafter “offending vehicle”) in a rash and negligent manner and turned it upside down. Son of Claimant/Respondent No.1 received serious injuries because of the same and he died on the spot. The incident was reported to Police Station Dharsiva and under Crime No.5/16, offence under Section 279, 337, 304A IPC was registered. At the time of accident, deceased was aged about 19 years and a healthy young man who used to perform the work of ‘loading and unloading’ the goods articles in the offending vehicle owned by Respondent No.3. The deceased used to earn Rs.200 per day and 4 Rs.6,000/- per month from the said work. An amount of Rs.36.92,000/- was prayed by the claimant as compensation. 5. In absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/- per month which will be Rs.54,000/- as yearly income. Following the principles laid down in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi And Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, since the age of the deceased was below 40 years, 40% of the yearly income i.e. Rs.21,600/- was calculated towards future prospects, thereafter, yearly dependence comes to Rs.75,600/-. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50 % of the yearly dependence i.e. Rs.37,800/- was calculated towards personal expenses and deducting the same from Rs.75,600/-, Rs.37,800/- comes as yearly dependence. Further, by applying the multiplier of 11 according to the principles laid down in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal assessed the compensation to Rs.04,15,800/- and Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.15000/- for loss of estate was also awarded. In total, Rs.4,45,800/- was assessed as compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance company submits that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle which had a seating capacity of 1 + 1, driver and cleaner. There was no sitting capacity 5 for any coolie or labour. Since the same was in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1/claimant submits that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, he was labour and was travelling in the offending vehicle along with the articles loaded in the offending vehicle. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the appeal. 9. It appears that the principal contention raised by the appellant / Insurance Company is that the deceased was travelling in the offending goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and therefore, his risk was not covered either under the policy or under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the said contention does not inspire confidence of this Court in view of the evidence available on record. 10. The evidence of Purshottam Rai (AW-2) who is an eye-witness to the incidence is of considerable significance. The said witness has categorically deposed before the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle is a goods carrier vehicle and he and deceased were working as a Khalasi in the offending vehicle. This witness has deposed he was sitting along with the driver in the front seat of the vehicle and the deceased was sitting at the backside. This witness has also deposed that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending was driving the vehicle in a rash and 6 negligent manner to which this witness objected as well, however, the driver still drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and overturned the vehicle upside down and the deceased died. The testimony of this witness remains consistent with the material aspect of the manner of accident and nothing substantial has been elicited in cross-examination so as to discredit his version. 11.The Tribunal has also considered this aspect and after considering the evidence of the parties as also the fact that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a labourer who was also covered under the policy, has come to the conclusion that the Insurance company has failed to adduce any evidence to this respect that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. 12.After consideration of the pleadings, evidence on record and the settled position of law governing the field, this Court finds no merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The learned Claims Tribunal has meticulously appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and has given well-reasoned findings on all material issues, particularly with regard to the fact that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger and in the considered opinion of this Court also, it does not appear that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. On the other hand, it is quite clear that he was travelling as a labourer in the offending vehicle along with articles. As such, the grounds which has been raised by the Insurance 7 Company cannot sustain and the award passed by the Tribunal fastening liability upon the Insurance Company is sustainable in the eye of law. 13.Accordingly, the Appeal being MAC No.1049 of 2018 filed by the Insurance Company lacks merits which is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 1142 of 2018 14. The question that arises for consideration in this Appeal filed by the claimants (appellants) is whether any case for enhancement is made out in the award of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants and if so, to what extent? 15.Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the monthly income of the deceased has not been assessed by the Tribunal in its proper perspective. As the accident happened on 06.01.2016 and taking into consideration the Minimum Wages Act, the monthly income of the deceased who is a labourer would come to Rs.5,860/-, and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in assessing it to Rs.4,500/-. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Tribunal has also erred in not applying the appropriate multiplier while calculating the quantum of dependency. The multiplier has to be applied as per the age of the deceased not as per the age of the claimants. The Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 as the deceased was aged about 19 years, however, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11 taking into account the age of the claimants i.e. between 51-55 which is apparently erroneous. Hence, it is prayed that the compensation may be suitably enhanced. 8 16.Leaned counsel for Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has considered each and every aspect in its proper perspective and thereafter awarded the compensation which is just and proper and not required to be interfered with. 17. Now, this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 18. In a motor accident claim case, the primary duty of the Courts/Tribunals is to ensure that the compensation awarded is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. It is a well settled principle that such compensation should neither be a meager amount nor a bonanza. 19.As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from his work as a labourer, but no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to substantiate this claim. In such circumstances, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income at Rs.4,500/-. However, in absence of documentary evidence, one must consider the nature of the occupation, the date of the accident, the price index and the cost of living etc, particularly the Minimum Wags notified by the Labour Department. Upon considering these factors, I find it appropriate to take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,860/- as per the minimum wages, thus, the annual income comes to Rs. 70,320/-. In view of the judgment rendered in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and 9 Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, a 40% addition towards future prospects (Rs. 28,128/-) is applicable, bringing the annual income to Rs. 98,448/-. 20.Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 19 years and a bachelor, a deduction of 1/2 (Rs.49,224/-) is made towards personal expenses, resulting in an annual dependency of Rs.49,224/-. In view of the principles laid down in the judgments rendered in the matters of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and considering the age of the deceased i.e. 19 years, a multiplier of 18 is applied. Thus, the total dependency works out to Rs. 8,86,032/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. (40,000/-X 2+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 96,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 10,18,032/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 8,86,032/- 02 Towards loss of consortium along with increase of 10 % in every three years Rs.96,000/- 03 Towards loss of Estate along Rs. 18,000/- 10 with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 10,18,032/- 21.Accordingly, the total compensation is recomputed at Rs. 10,18,032/-. After deducting Rs.4,45,800/-, as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement amounts to Rs.5,72,232/-. 22.In the result, the Appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.1142 of 2018 is allowed in part. The appellants/claimants would be entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.5,72,232/- in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 23.Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash