1 2025:CGHC:40892 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 550 of 2018 1 - Hemsagar Ratnakar S/o Chainuram Ratnakar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sukhapali, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Kumudani Dubey Wd/o Late Prakash Dubey Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Paikin Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sameer Dubey S/o Late Prakash Dubey Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Paikin Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Amar Dubey S/o Late Prakash Dubey Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Kumudani, R/o Village Paikin Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Suresh Dubey S/o Late Tirthram Dubey Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Paikin Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 13.08.2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being aggrieved by an award dated 04.01.2018 passed by the court of learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahsamund (C.G.) (hereinafter referred as MACT for sake brevity) in Claim Case No. 07/2017 in favour of the respondents. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 08.11.2016 at around 6:00 p.m., the deceased, Prakash Dubey, aged about 48 years, was proceeding to perform his work at a rice mill when, near Chhindpali turn, the appellant drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle being used by the deceased, resulting in his death on the spot. It was further pleaded that the deceased was employed at a rice mill and was earning a monthly income of ₹9,000/-, which formed the basis of the compensation claimed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The untimely death of the deceased caused irreparable loss to the claimants, who were dependent on his income for their livelihood. 3. After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 60,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/4 of 3 the income i.e. Rs. 15,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 45,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 46 to 50 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, children and brother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 5,85,000/-. Further Rs. 56,112/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection & Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,01,112/- in favour of the wife, children and brother of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is contrary to the facts on record and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. The appellant specifically pleaded that the deceased, Prakash Dubey, died after falling from his bicycle and that the accident did not occur due to the involvement of the appellant’s vehicle. However, the learned Tribunal failed to consider this crucial aspect. It is further submitted that no eyewitness was examined by the claimants to establish the occurrence of the accident involving the appellant’s vehicle, and thus, the finding of rash and negligent driving is 4 unsustainable. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as ₹5,000/- in the absence of any cogent evidence or supporting documents from the claimants. On the basis of such speculative income, an excessive and exorbitant amount of compensation has been awarded, which is bad in law and deserves to be reduced. It is further argued that the Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, despite the fact that respondent No. 4, who is the brother of the deceased and aged about 45 years, cannot be treated as a dependent. Therefore, the appropriate deduction ought to have been 1/3rd, which would have affected the final compensation amount. On these grounds, the impugned award is assailed and a prayer is made for setting it aside or reducing the compensation suitably. 5. None for the respondents. 6. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the 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 awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the 5 given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month from his work, but no evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month which appears to be proper on the date of accident Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 5,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 60,000/- per annum. 10. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 46 to 50 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, children and brother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 20,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 40,000/-. 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 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,20,000/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs.56,112/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate 6 (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X3+10%+10%) each (increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000 for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, children and brother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 7,56,112/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,20,000/- 02 Towards consortium (40,000X3+10%+10%) each (increase of 10% in every three years) Rs. 1,44,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 05 Towards medical expenses Rs.56,112/- Total Rs. 7,56,112/- 11. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 7,56,112/-. After deducting Rs. 7,01,112/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 55,000/-. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The 7 claimants/appellants i.e. wife, children and brother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 55,000/- 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. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha