1 2025:CGHC:21162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1601 of 2017 1. Hamid Ahmed S/o Late Shri Abdul Kadar, Aged About 50 Years, R/o C. H. 740 Aaditya Nagar C. G. Housing Board Thana Mohan Nagar, Tehsil Durg And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2. Asfak Ahmed, S/o Shri Hamid Ahmed, Aged About 21 Years, R/o C. H. 740 Aaditya Nagar C. G. Housing Board Thana Mohan Nagar, Tehsil Durg And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1. Leman Sahu S/o Shri Dani Ram Sahu, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Villege Dhanora, Thana Utai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (driver). 2. Aadhyan Shikshan Smiti, Through Director / Secretary Vivek Pathak S/o Late V. D. Pathak R/o L. I. G. 294 Padmanabhapur Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner). 3. Divisional Manager, The I. C. I. C. I. Lombard Insurance Company Limited, Inter Press Building No. 11, 401/402 4th Floor New Link Road Malad W West Mumbai 400064 Local Office- Chauhan Estate Near Chandra Maurya Talkies Supela Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh Insurer Vehicle Bus No. C. G. 07 - E-0716 , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Chitram Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma Advocate. For other Respondents : None. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.05.09 17:23:23 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (08.05.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the impugned award dated 25.07.2017 passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 2537/2013 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,10,500/-with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 14.10.2010, at about 13.55 pm, when Shahid Ahmed (now deceased) was going to Hudco by motorcycle of his friend. At that time, respondent No. 1 namely Leman Sahu driving a school bus bearing registration No. CG-07-E-0716 in a rash & negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of deceased from the front side. As a result of which Shahid Ahmed (deceased) sustained grievous injuries and during treatment he died. After that, a report was lodged based on the above stated offence. It is stated that on the date of the incident, the age of the deceased was 18 years and used to assist in ration shop of his family and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from his work. Due to the casual death of the son/brother of the appellants/claimants, there is an irreparable loss to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants preferred an application to claim a total compensation of Rs. 16,40,000/- for their irreparable loss. 3. The learned Claims Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues and, after appreciation of evidence and material available on record, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month and and applied 50% future prospects to the income of the deceased. Further, the age of the deceased was considered as 18 years at the time of the accident. Learned Tribunal found that claimants are the father and brother (02 persons), so deduction towards personal and caring expenses would be 1/2, and after applying a multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,86,000/- and 3 Rs.1,30,000/- has been awarding on other heads. Additionally, Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards medical expenses. Thus, total compensation of Rs. 6,21,000/- has been calculated. However, the Tribunal considering 50-50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the driver of offending vehicle (school bus), awarded 50% of the total compensation amount i.e. Rs.3,10,500 /- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month but the learned Claims Tribunal has only assessed notional income as Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on the lower side. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed and needs to be enhanced suitably. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposes the contention made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the addition of future prospects to the income of deceased should be 40% instead of 50%, since the fixed income of the deceased has not been proved. Therefore, prayed for modification in the impugned order. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. 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. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,10,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As regards income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month by 4 working in a ration shop of his family but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been adduced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything, therefore, keeping in mind the wage structure prevailing on the date of accident i.e., 14.10.2010 and as per the notification by Labour Department, the minimum wages of un-skilled worker at that point of time was Rs.3,926/-. Therefore, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 3,926/- per month. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 47,112/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, considering the age of the deceased as 18 years, after adding 40% towards future prospects instead of 50% i.e. Rs. 18,844/-, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 65,956/-. 10.The deceased was a unmarried person and the claimants are the father and brother (02 persons) of the deceased, so deduction towards personal and caring expenses would be 1/2 as has rightly held by the tribunal i.e.,32,978/-, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 32,978/-. 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 considering the age of the deceased i.e., 18 years, after applying multiplier of 18, as has rightly held by the Claims Tribunal, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,93,604/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-, for funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/-. Additionally, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, as has rightly held by the tribunal. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 7,08,604/-. Thus, the claimants are 5 entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Compensation towards dependency Rs. 5,93,604/- 02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 03 Towards Love and affection to all the two claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 80,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- 05 Towards medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total compensation Awarded Rs. 7,08,604/- 11. On the basis of the facts and evidence available on record, the 50% contributory negligence of the deceased, determined by the Tribunal, is justified and no interference is required. 12. In the result, the appeal of appellants/claimants is partly allowed. The total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 7,08,604/-. Considering 50-50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the driver of the offending bus (school bus), the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.3,54,302/- (7,08,604 x 50% = 3,54,302) instead of Rs.3,10,500/-. After deducting Rs. 3,10,500/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 43,802/-. The amount that has already been paid shall be adjusted. The claimants shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement till the date of actual payment. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 13. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal 6 Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.