NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 109 of 2022 1 - Vipin Chandra Tripathi S/o Late Tapadhar Tripathi Aged About 60 Years R/o Quarter No. 10/ F, Sada No. 28, Sector - 4, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh; 2 - Smt. Sarojani Tripathi W/o Vipin Chandra Tripathi Aged About 55 Years R/o Quarter No. 10/ F, Sada No. 28, Sector - 4, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.Smt. Vandana Bakhshi W/o Ajay Bakhshi Aged About 43 Years R/o Jyoti Talkies Road Sadar Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar --- Appellants Versus 1 - Harendra Singh S/o Kanwar Singh R/o Quarter No. 202, Block D - 2, Green City Risali, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Car No. Rj-14, Qc-7429); 2 - The Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Akash Ganga Complex, Supel, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Car No. Rj-14, Qc-7429). --- Respondents For Appellants Shri Ankit Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 Shri C.P. Sahu and Shri A.D. Kuldeep, Advocates. For Respondent No.2 Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 19 /03/2026 1. Heard on Admission. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the parties, matter heard finally. 4. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellants / claimants, being aggrieved by the award ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.01 14:19:53 +0530 -2- dated 28.09.2021 passed by the IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District – Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 94/2019. 5. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.30,81,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,63,400/- along-with interest as compensation in favour of the appellants/claimants on account of death of deceased Neelu Tripathi who died in an accident occurred on 12.12.2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Car bearing registration No. RJ/14/QC/7429. Driven and owned by respondent No. 1 and Insured by respondent No.2 (Insurance Company). 6. As per pleadings in the claim application filed under section 166 of the MV Act by the appellants/claimants, on the date of accident i.e. 12.12.2018 the deceased Neelu Tripathi with his brother was returning home from work riding his motor-cycle, at about 11:55 PM (night), when they reached near BSNL Square, the driver of the offending vehicle by rash and negligent driving dashed the motor-cycle of the deceased, as a result of which he suffered injuries and was admitted to Sector -9 Hospital Bhilai where he was declared dead. The accident was reported to Police Station – Bhilai Bhatti, District – Durg. 7. As per further pleadings deceased was working as a Waiter in a hotel earning Rs.14,000/- per month and was unmarried. The deceased was aged about 27 years. 8. The claim application was resisted by the respondent No. 1 pleading that deceased died on account of his own negligence and there is no negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that deceased was not holding valid and effective driving license and there is violation of terms and contions of the Insurance Policy. -3- 9. The learned Tribunal on the basis of above pleadings framed as many as six issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants, thereby awarding the above stated compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased Rs.8000/- which is absolutely unjustified. He further submits that the employer of the deceased had given a certificate showing Rs.10,000/- per month as salary but it has been ignored by the learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, suitable enhancement may be made by this Court. 11. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the author of the certificate was not examined nor any other document suggesting that he was working as a waiter has been brought on record. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the certificate and just compensation has been awarded. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record. 13. So far as the contention raised by Shri Pandey, Advocate that the certificate was wrongly disbelieved is concerned, perusal of the record would indicate that the owner of the hotel in which the deceased was said to have been working has not been examined. The Tribunal while assessing of evidence brought on record categorically held that the certificate cannot be relied to assess upon the income of the deceased in absence of any appointment letter, register, etc. The finding so recorded appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence and does not require any interference. 14. Looking to the nature of job; date of accident; age of the deceased; minimum wages prevailing and number of dependents, this Court can safely assessed the monthly of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. In the light of judgment of Hon’ble -4- Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this court is reassessing the compensation as under :- S.No. Head Calculation 1. Yearly Income Rs.9000/- x 12 = Rs.108000/- 2. 40% future prospect Rs.43200/- 3. Total Yearly Income Rs.151200/- (108000 + 43200) 4. 1/2 deduction for personal expenses Rs.75600/- (151200-75600 ) 5. Multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs.75600 x 17 = Rs.12,85,200/- 6. Towards loss of estate and funeral Rs.30,000/- 7. Filial consortium Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each appellant) Total compensation Rs.13,95,200/- 16. Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.12,63,400/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the appellants / claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,31,800/- along with interest of 6% from the date of filing of this appeal i.e. 12.01.2022.The amount shall be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned Tribunal would pass appropriate order with regard to it’s apportionment, investment and disbursement. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent. Sd/- Sd/-/-/-/--/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish