1 2025:CGHC:14934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 34 of 2018 1 - Smt. Rupi Singh Dhruve W/o Late Naval Singh, Aged About 28 Years 2 - Ku. Geetanjali Singh Dhruve, D/o Late Naval Singh, Aged About 13 Years 3 - Ku. Anjali Singh Dhruve, D/o Late Naval Singh, Aged About 10 Years 4 - Ku. Nandani Singh Dhruve, D/o Late Naval Singh, Aged About 8 Years 5 - Anurag Singh Dhruve, Son Of Late Naval Singh, Aged About 13 Years Appellant No. 2 to 5 being minor through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rupi Singh Dhruve, Aged About 28 Years, W/o Late Naval Singh, 6 - Reva Singh Dhruve, Son Of Late Rambharose Singh, Aged About 65 Years 7 - Smt. Harabai Singh Dhruve, W/o Reva Singh Dhruve, Aged About 60 Years All R/o Ward No. 4, Parijat Colony, Kasturba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/claimants 2 versus 1 - Surabh Shukla Son Of Arvind Shukla, R/o Driver, Tilaknagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - M/s Sudarshan Carrier, Through Smt. Sudarshan Bhatiya, R/o 109/367 G.T. Road, District Kanpur, U. P. 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional / Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Office 112/1 Benajhabar, Kanpur, U. P. Regional Office, The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office IInd Floor, Shriram Trade Center, Infront Of Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan with Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocates. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment on Board 26/03/2025 This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 13.10.2017 passed by VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in MACT No. 487/2015 awarding total compensation of Rs.10,73,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening liability on the non-applicant No.3/insurance company jointly and severally along with non-applicant No.1/driver and non-applicant No.2/owner. 3 02. As per claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on 3.7.2015 Naval Singh was going in tanker of his company bearing No. CG 10 C 5123 from Bilaspur to Vishakhapattanam for taking fuel. However, on the way at Koraput (Orissa), non-applicant No.1 by driving vehicle bearing No. UP 78 CT 0264 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and hit the vehicle of Naval Singh as a result of which Naval Singh fell off the vehicle and was run over by the offending vehicle. He was immediately taken to a nearby hospital but was declared brought dead by the doctor. It was pleaded that at the time of accident the deceased Naval Singh was 43 years of age, working as tanker driver and earning Rs.20,000/- per month as also Rs.200/- daily allowance. The claimants were dependent upon the earning of the deceased and hence they claimed a total sum of Rs.85,56,250/- with interest as compensation under various heads. 03. Non-applicant No.1 did not file any written statement and remained ex-parte whereas non-applicant No.2 in his written statement contended that on the date of accident he was having a valid and effective driving licence, there was no breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on his part, therefore, compensation, if any, is payable by the non-applicant No.3/insurance company. 4 04. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement pleaded that non-applicant No.2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence as also the vehicle was being plied without a valid fitness certificate and permit. This apart, the application is not maintainable as the owner and insurer of vehicle No. CG 10C 5123 have not been made party. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 05. 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. Hence this appeal by the claimants for enhancement. 06. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.5000/- per month whereas it should have been taken as Rs.20,000/- as he was working as tanker driver and was also getting daily allowance @ Rs.200/-. The Tribunal has awarded meager amount towards medical treatment and future prospect. This apart, under the conventional heads also the amount awarded by learned Tribunal needs to be suitably enhanced. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. 07. 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. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. As regards income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a tanker driver and also getting daily allowance of Rs.200/- but no documentary or oral evidence in support thereof has been adduced. Therefore, in these circumstances, in absence of any proof regarding income, the income of the deceased as a skilled labour is considered as Rs.6,229/- per month as per minimum wages at the relevant time. Considering the age of the deceased, the number of dependents, the nature of job, the deduction made by the Tribunal towards personal and living expenses, multiplier of 14 applied and 30% future prospect granted, is quite in accordance with law and needs no interference. However, the amount awarded under the conventional heads being on the lower side needs to be enhanced. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as under: 6 Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased @ Rs.6,229/- per month. Rs.74,748/- per annum 02. 30% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. (Rs.22,424 + Rs.74,748) Rs.97,172/- 03. 1/5th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (Rs.97,172-19,434) Rs.77,738/- 04. Multiplier of 14 to be applied Rs.10,88,332/- 05. Towards loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1 Towards loss of parental consortium to claimants No. 2 to 5 each @ Rs.40,000/- Towards loss of filial consortium to claimants No. 6 & 7 each @ Rs.40,000/- Towards funeral expenses Towards loss of estate Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- Rs.80,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Total compensation Rs.14,28,332/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,73,600/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held 7 entitled for additional compensation of Rs.3,54,732/- (Rupees Three lacs fifty four thousand seven hundred and thirty two only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.03.28 16:19:16 +0530