1 2025:CGHC:23423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 17.03.2025 Judgment delivered on: 12.06.2025 MAC No. 201 of 2017 1 - Ful Kunwar, Wd/o Late Devsharan Gond, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Vikrampur, P.S. Sonhat, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ................Claimant, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Usha Tiwari, W/o Jay Bhim Tiwari, R/o Takiya Road Ambikapur, P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Upendra Kumar Singh, S/o Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Choura, P.S. Bhavnathpur, District Gadhwa Jharkhand. 3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Office At Near Kumkum Hotel, Bramha Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bal Kumari, Wd/o Late Gulab Singh Gond, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Vikrampur, P.S. Sonhat, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Yogendra Singh, S/o Late Gulab Singh Gond, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Bal Kumari Respondent No.4 R/o Village 2 Vikrampur, P.S. Sonhat, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Bhupendra Singh, S/o Late Gulab Singh Gond, Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Bal Kumari Respondent No.4 R/o Village Vikrampur, P.S. Sonhat, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 to 6 : Mr. Prahlad Shrivas, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 10.11.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 15/2015 awarding a compensation of Rs.33,37,484/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, fastening liability on the non-applicant No.3/insurance company. 2. As per claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on 13.01.2015, deceased Gulab Singh along with his family went to village Srinagar in Bolero bearing registration No. CG 16 B/0754. Rajaram was driving the said vehicle carefully from Baikunthpur to his village Odari. On the way, the said vehicle met with an accident with the trailer bearing registration No. C.G.15 A/9667 which was being 3 driven by non-applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. Due to accident, deceased Gulab Singh sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to District Hospital- Baikunthpur where he died. Other people riding in the Bolero were also injured. Bolero vehicle driver Rajaram also died in the said accident. On lodging the report, offence under Sections 279, 337, 304 A IPC has been registered at police station- Sonhat and charge sheet has been filed. It has also been prayed in the application that the deceased was posted as a forest guard in the forest department and used to earn an income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, the applicants have sought the compensation of Rs. 60,65,000/- including all amounts claimed under various heads. 3. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 did not file reply and remained ex-parte in the case. 4. The non-applicant No. 3/insurance company filed a reply and denied the statement of the applicants and stated that the deceased was a person between 31 and 35 years of age. It is stated that the driver of the truck has a valid driving licence and other documents for using it as a commercial vehicle. The vehicle owner did not inform the company about the accident. The amount of compensation has been sought in an inflated manner. The deceased Rajaram himself was driving the Bolero vehicle very fast. Further, it has been stated that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence and the deceased did not even have a driving license. Therefore, the insurance company has prayed to dismiss the application filed by the applicants. 4 5. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is erroneous to the extent that the award amount has not been properly distributed amongst the dependents. The appellant is the widow mother of the deceased Gulab Singh and she was solely dependent upon the income earned by the deceased, but while making the apportionment of the award amount, the learned Claims Tribunal did not award compensation in respect of appellant, properly and restricted the same to amount of Rs. 2,18,742/-. The findings of the learned Claims Tribunal in respect of issue No.5 is erroneous. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed error in dividing the compensation amount amongst the dependents. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed and the award amount may equally be distributed amongst the appellant and respondents No. 4 to 6. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly awarded compensation which needs no interference by this Court. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Looking to the age of the deceased, the nature of his job and the number of dependency in light of oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has committed no illegality in assessing income of the deceased, making deduction 5 towards living and personal expenses, applying multiplier and adding 50% towards future prospects. However, the amount awarded under the conventional head being not in accordance with law, deserves to be enhanced. Though, the appellant in this appeal has prayed for equal distribution of entire amount of compensation amongst respondents No. 4 to 6 and herself, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the relation of respondents No. 4 to 6 with the deceased, the age and requirements of these claimants and their dependency on the deceased, there cannot be equal apportionment of the compensation amongst these claimants and the appellant, at present, is aged about 56 years and is mother of the deceased, thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as under:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 15,821/- 02. Annual income of the deceased (Rs. 15,821 x 12) Rs. 1,89,852/- 03. 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (Rs. 1,89,852 – 63,284) Rs. 1,26,568/- 04. 50% of (3) above to be added towards future prospects. (Rs. 63,284 + Rs. 1,26,568) Rs. 1,89,852/- 05. Multiplier of 17 be applied Rs. 32,27,484/- 06. Towards loss of spousal consortium to respondent No.4 Rs. 1,00,000/- 07. Towards loss of parental consortium to respondents No. 5 & 6 Rs. 80,000/- 08. Towards loss of filial consortium to Rs. 40,000/- 6 claimant/appellant 09. Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 10. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.34,77,484/- 10. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.33,37,484/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. Out of this additional amount of compensation, the appellant shall be entitled to have her share as per apportionment made by the Tribunal. 11.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV