1 2025:CGHC:21013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1729 of 2017 Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Bathena Chowk Sinhna Complex Raipur Road, Dhamtari, Post Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Deshir Bai Yadav W/o Ganeshram, Aged About 54 Years R/o Subhash Nagar Ward Kanta Talab, Near Water Tank Hatkeshar, Pot, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Narendra Yadav S/o Ganeshram Yadav, Aged About 23 Years R/o Subhash Nagar Ward Kanta Talab, Near Water Tank Hatkeshar, Pot, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh(Claimants) 3 - Falesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Santram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Post Tarsiwa, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Owner cum Driver) --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 441 of 2018 1 - Smt. Deshir Bai Yadav W/o Ganeshram Aged About 54 Years R/o Subhash Nagar Ward Kanta Talab, Nearby Water Tank, Hatkeshwar, Post, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Narendra Yadav S/o Late Ganeshram Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Subhash Nagar Ward Kanta Talab, Nearby Water Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.05.09 17:34:14 +0530 2 Tank, Hatkeshwar, Post, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) ---Appellants Versus 1 - Falesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Santram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Tarsiwa, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Owner cum Driver) 2 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Bathena Chowk, Sinha Complex, Raipur Road, Dhamtari, Post Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) --- Respondent(s) For Insurer : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Claimants : Ms. Devanshi Chakraborty, Advocate on behalf of Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Advocate For Owner cum Driver : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal (Order on Board) (07.05.2025) 1. Since both the appeals arise out of same award dated 11.09.2017, passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.), in Claim Case No.91/2016, therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The gist of the claims before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 12.08.2015 at around 7 AM, Dwarika Yadav (now deceased) was going from Mujgahan to Hatkeshwar by foot, at that time driver cum owner of offending vehicle (motorcycle Bajaj Platina) 3 bearing registration No. CG-05-N-5904, drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Dwarika due to which Dwarika sustained grievous injuries on his head and died during treatment in a hospital. The incident was reported at concerned Police Station based on which a criminal case was registered. 3. It is claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Dwarika was aged about 30 years and he was unmarried. He was a labour and was earning Rs. 9,000/- monthly. Due to the casual death of Dwarika, there is an irreparable loss to his legal representatives, therefore, the legal representatives of Dwarika had preferred an application before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,64,000/-. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, assessed monthly income of the deceased to Rs.3,000/-, deducted 1/3 income towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 17 and given Rs.30,000/- in other heads. Thus, total Rs.4,38,000/- has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of legal representatives of Dwarika with interest @ 6 % per annum, from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon Insurance Company. Hence, MAC No. 1729/2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company for reduction of the compensation and MAC No.441/2018 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. 4 (MAC NO.1729/2017) 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company argues only in quantum part. She submits that the deceased was unmarried, the deductions towards personal and living expenses would be 1/2 which has not been considered by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, the amount of compensation may be recomputed and it may be reduced suitably. 6. None appeared on behalf of Owner cum Driver/Respondent No.3. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Claimants/Respondents No.1 & 2 opposes the argument advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company. MAC No.441/2018 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. The learned counsel urged that the Tribunal erred in not assessing the proper monthly income of the deceased. She further submits that the Tribunal has not given future prospect. The Tribunal has also awarded lesser amount on other heads, therefore, this appeal may be allowed and amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 9. None appeared on behalf of Owner cum Driver/Respondent No.1. 5 10. On the other hand learned Counsels appearing for Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 opposes the argument advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants. 11. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 12. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.300/day i.e. 9,000/-. per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the notification by Labour Department for minimum wages, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 5,787/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 12.08.2015. The annual income comes to Rs. 69,444/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the age of the deceased has been found to be 30 years, after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 27,777/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 97,221/- (69444+27777). 13. The deceased was aged about 30 years and was unmarried 6 and the claimants (total 2) are mother & brother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 which dependency comes to Rs. 48,610.5/-(97221-48610.5). 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, after applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 8,26,378/-. The claimants are further entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, they are further entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 09,36,378/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 8,26,378/- 02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 03 Towards love and affection to each claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- (40000 x 2) Rs. 80,000/- 04 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 9,36,378/- 14. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 7 9,36,378/-. After deducting Rs. 4,38,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 4,98,378/-. 15. Accordingly, the claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.4,98,378/- 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. 16. In the result :- i. MAC No.1729/2017 is dismissed. ii. MAC No.441/2018 is partly allowed. 17. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 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 Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham