1 2025:CGHC:31114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 424 of 2018 1 - Smt. Pooja Pandey W/o W/o Late Shri Pramod Pandey Aged About 24 Years R/o Padavpara, Near Naya Pool, Mungeli, P.S., Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Sahil Pandey S/o S/o Late Shri Pramod Pandey Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Appellant No. 1 Smt. Pooja Pandey R/o Padavpara, Near Naya Pool, Mungeli, P.S., Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Lata Devi W/o S/o Shri Ashwani Pandey Aged About 49 Years R/o Padavpara, Near Naya Pool, Mungeli, P.S., Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pravesh @ Ravindra Kumar Pandey D/o S/o Shri Ashwani Pandey Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Appellant No. 3 Smt. Lata Devi, R/o Padavpara, Near Naya Pool, Mungeli, P.S., Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 versus 1 - Gaurav Kotariya, S/o S/o Late Shri Ashok Chandra Jain Aged About 32 Years R/o New Bas Stand Road Mungeli, P.S., Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. Cg 10 Fa 7761), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Branch Manager, Ifco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office Ifco Sadan, C.I. Zila Sentre Saket New Delhi Branch Office First Floor, Galaxy Heights, Near Icici Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Sanjay Apartment, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashwani Pandey S/o S/o Shri Markhande Pandey Aged About 50 Years (Govt. Teacher) C/o Primary School Kanhabhaira, P.S. Pipariya, Tahsil Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 3 : None. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Panda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 28.9.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 65/2016 whereby an amount of Rs. 5,93,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that the appellants have filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Late Shri Pramod Pandey, who died in a motor accident on 03.08.2016. It is an admitted fact that appellant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, appellant No. 2 is his minor son, appellant No. 3 is his mother, appellant No. 4 is his minor brother, and respondent No. 3 is the father of the deceased. As per the claim application, on the date of the incident the deceased Pramod Pandey was driving the offending vehicle, a car bearing registration No. CG 10 FA 7761, owned by respondent No. 1, carefully and cautiously, but near village Rehunta, the steering of the car failed, causing the vehicle to dash against a tree, due to which Pramod Pandey sustained 4 grievous injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, the jurisdictional police registered an FIR against respondent No. 1 under Section 304-A of IPC and, after due investigation, filed the charge sheet before the competent Magistrate. The claimants pleaded that the deceased, aged about 27 years, was employed as a skilled driver under respondent No. 1 and was earning Rs. 10,000 to 15,000 per month, and that after his death the entire family is facing great mental agony, therefore, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,00,000/-. Respondent No. 1 denied the averments and contended that he was unaware of the incident, further submitting that the deceased was holding a valid and effective driving licence and the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 2, therefore liability, if any, should be fastened on respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 also denied the claim, raising the plea that the application was not maintainable and asserting that the deceased was not holding a valid licence at the time of the accident and had driven rashly and negligently, resulting in his own death, hence liability, if any, should be shifted to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3, the father of the deceased, filed his return claiming that being a necessary party he too is entitled to a share in any compensation awarded. The learned Tribunal, after framing issues and appreciating the evidence led by the parties, partly allowed the claim application. 5 3. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 12,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 24,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 27 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, son, parents and brother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 4,08,000/-. Further Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 50,000/- towards love and affection and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,93,000/- in favour of the wife, son, parents and brother of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,93,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for 6 respondent No. 2 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 3. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. 7 especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 6,107/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 73,284/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 29,314/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,02,598/-. 11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 27 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, son, parents and brother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 25,650/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 76,948/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 13,08,116/-. 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). As per 'Magma 8 General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X5+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,40,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, son, parents and brother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 15,84,116/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 13,08,116/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X5+10% +10%). Rs. 2,40,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 15,84,116/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 15,84,116/-. After deducting Rs. 5,93,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 9,91,116/-. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, son, parents and brother of the 9 deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 9,91,116/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal Singh/Raghu Jat