1 2025:CGHC:14289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1706 of 2017 1 - Jyoti Dubey Wd/o Late Anish Dubey, aged about 35 years, R/o Hemu Nagar Colony, Police Station-Torwa, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Adarsh Dubey S/o Late Anish Dubey, aged about 11 years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Jyoti Dubey, aged about 35 years, Wd/o Late Anish Dubey, R/o Hemu Nagar Colony, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Arpit Dubey S/o Late Anish Dubey, aged about 07 years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Jyoti Dubey, aged about 35 years, Wd/o Late Anish Dubey, R/o Hemu Nagar Colony, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Chameli Dubey Wd/o Late Shobha Prasad Dubey, aged about 65 years, R/o Hemu Nagar Colony, Police Station-Torwa, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Appellants/Claimants Versus 1 - Ramswarup Agrawal, S/o Late Girdhari Lal Agrawal, R/o Tulsi Marg, Korba, District Korba, (C.G.) ..............(Owner of Accidental Vehicle No. C.G.12 A K 4196). 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) (Insurer of Accidental Vehicle No. C.G.12 AK 4196) Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ayush Mahiswar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 25.03.2025. 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimants/Appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur,(C.G.) in Claim Case No. 437/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,01,312/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of application till realization in favour of the Claimants/Appellants for the death of Anish Dubey (since deceased). 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 07.05.2015, Anish Dubey (deceased), who is husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants No. 2 &3 and son of appellant No. 4 was on his way to take photograph in an engagement through vehicle No. CG/12/AK/4196 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) which was being driven by one Mahesh Kumar Chakradhari very rashly, negligently and he ended up in dashing a tree, as a result of which the driver of the vehicle Mahesh Kumar Chakradhari died on the spot and Anish Dubey sustained severe injuries. He was admitted in Apollo hospital, where he died 3 during the course of treatment. 3. F.I.R. regarding the alleged accident was lodged at Police Station- Belgahana based upon which crime bearing No. 145/2015 under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC were registered against respondent No.1-owner. 4. It was pleaded that at the time of incident, the deceased Anish Dubey was 35 years of age, was self employed by working as photographer and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The claimants were totally dependent upon the earning of the deceased as he was the sole bread winner of the family as such, they claimed a total sum of Rs. 57,50,000/- with interest as compensation under various heads. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above by awarding a sum of Rs. 08,01,312/- which is too meager. Hence, this appeal being filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a meager amount under the conventional head of compensation and even without considering the amount for medical expenses when the deceased was admitted. The learned Tribunal erred in applying the correct future prospects as per the law laid down in the matter of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be enhanced suitably. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 02/ The Oriental Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the contentions 4 raised by the appellants/claimants, supported the impugned award and submitted that the impugned award has been passed by the Tribunal keeping in view all the relevant aspects of the matter including the income of the deceased. Being so, there is no need to interfere with the award impugned. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 9. As regard income of the deceased, though the claimants/appellants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month as a photographer, but no such proof regarding the same has been adduced by the claimants/appellants,therefore, in these circumstances in absence of any such proof regarding the income, the income of the deceased as a skilled labour is considered as Rs. 5787/- per month as per minimum wages at the relevant time. The deceased was married and he was of 35 years of age at the time of accident. Thus, in veiw of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) future prospects at the 40% of the actual income of the deceased is required to be taken in place of 30%. Further, it is clear from record of the learned Tribunal that for medical expenses it did not award any amount in favour of the claimants/appellants. However, from bare perusal of Ex. P/09, i.e., medical bill of the Apollo Hospital filed by the claimants/appellants and it is clear that the claimants/appellants have spent hefty amount towards the deceased. The learned Tribunal has also awarded meager compensation under the various head which requires to be enhanced suitably. Thus, keeping in view of all these things, the above discussion, and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) this Court is of the view that the 5 amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and the same requires reconsideration. Head Awarded by Tribunal (Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Rs.) Income 47,520/- (Rs.3960/- per month x 12) 69,444/- (Rs.5787 per month x 12) future prospects (30% of 47,520 + 14,256)= 61,776/- (40% of 69,444+27,778)=97,2 22/- 1/4th of deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased 61,776- 15444=46,33 2 97,222- 24,306=72,916 Mulltiplier 16 16 Total Loss of Depende ncy 46,332x16=7,4 1,312/- 72,916x16=11,,66,656 /- For loss of love and affection 20,000/- 20,000/- For loss of estate 30,000/- 15,000/- For loss Nil Spousal consortium to 6 of consortiu m appellant No. 1 = 40,000/-. Parental consortium to appellants No. 2 & 3 = 40,000/- each. Filial consortium to appellant No. 4= 40,000/- For Medical Expenses Nil 70,459/- Funeral Expenses 10,000/- 15,000/- Total compens ation awarded 8,01,312/- 14,47,115/- 10. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimants/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 14,47,115/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs.8,01,312/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 6,45,803/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U.K. Raju