1 2025:CGHC:38139 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 336 of 2022 1 - Smt. Satroopa Bai Kanwar W/o Late Sheetal Kumar Kanwar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Old Karela , Ward No. 2, Post Dhara , Through Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Pusplata Kanwar D/o Late Sheetal Kumar Kanwar Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt Satroopa Bai Kanwar , R/o Village Old Karela , Ward No. 2, Post Dhara , Through Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Harshita Kanwar D/o Late Sheetal Kumar Kanwar Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt Satroopa Bai Kanwar , R/o Village Old Karela , Ward No. 2, Post Dhara , Through Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Saket Kumar Kanwar D/o Late Sheetal Kumar Kanwar Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt Satroopa Bai Kanwar , R/o Village Old Karela , Ward No. 2, Post Dhara , Through Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.08.04 11:13:38 +0530 2 5 - Smt. Mangteen Bai W/o Late Panchu Ram Kanwar Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Old Karela , Ward No. 2, Post Dhara , Through Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Raju @ Lala Kaushik S/o Punni Lal Kaushik Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post Bahatarai , Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2 - Surendra Kumar Kaushik S/o Nakched Prasad Kaushik R/o Village Chhatauna, Ward No. 14, Mandalpara, Post Hirri Mines, Police Station Hirri , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Rama Trade Centre, 1st Floor , Near Bus Stand Behind Rajiv Plaza , Bilaspur , District Bilapsur Chhattisgarh. Through Branch Manger , The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Beside Lic Office, Near Railway Station Road, Rajnandgaon , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 3 01.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 09.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 08/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,77,200/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Sheetal Kumar Kanwar. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 14.12.2020 at about 06:00 PM the deceased Sheetal Kumar Kanwar along with his friend Mahesh Kumar Nishad was going on motorcycle towards their village old Karela, at the same time, near village Amlidih, the respondent No.1 driving his Scorpio in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle resulting into the accident whereby Sheetal Kumar was taken to Government Hospital, Khairagarh and Mahesh Kumar was referred to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon where during the course of treatment both succumbed to injuries. 4 3. Appellants, who are wife, minor children and mother of the deceased, respectively, filed an application under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,24,000/- pleading therein that at the time of the incident, deceased was aged about 32 years and was an able-bodied person and used to earn by agriculture and also earn Rs.15,000/- per month as a labour. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 opposed the claim application and submitted that the vehicle was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company (respondent No.3 herein), therefore, they are liable for payment of compensation, if any. 5. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company also opposed the claim application and submitted that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the motorcycle himself therefore, they are not liable for payment of compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Sheetal Kumar Kanwar died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid offending vehicle which was driven by respondent No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found 5 proven, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs. 9,77,200/- as total compensation with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month which should be Rs. 8,960/- per month and moreover, Rs. 2,00,000/- should additionally be awarded under loss of consortium therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6 10. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Sheetal Kumar Kanwar to be Rs. 4,500/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 8,960/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and Rs. 1,07,520/- per annum as he worked as a labour and also earned from agriculture. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 4,500/- x 12 = Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 8,960 x 12 = Rs. 1,07,520/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 21,600 = Rs. 75,600/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 43,008 = Rs. 1,50,528/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 18,900/- = Rs. 56,700/- (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 37,632/- = Rs. 1,12,896/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs. (x) 16 = 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 9,07,200/- Rs. 18,06,336/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs.18,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000 Rs. 48,000/- x 5 = Rs. 2,40,000/- Total Rs. 9,77,200/- Rs. 20,82,336/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 9,77,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 20,82,336/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 9,77,200/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 11,05,136/-. The Respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 12.01.2021 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet