1 2025:CGHC:29647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1740 of 2017 1 - Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Late Somar Rai, Aged About 50 Years R/o J.P.Kirana Store, Subhash Nagar, Kukripara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Nisha D/o Late Niranjan Rai, Aged About 07 Months Wrongly Mention 16 Years, Appellant No.2 Through Amicus Curie, Guardian Grandmother Smt. Nirmala Devi, R/o J.P.Kirana Store, Subhash Nagar, Kukripara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Shankar Singh Yadav S/o R.B.Singh, Aged About 33 Years R/o Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajesh Sharma S/o Suresh Kumar Sharma, R/o House Number 524, Shyam Sadan, Sector 29, Faridabad Haryana ..............Owner, District : Faridabad, Haryana. 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Kachari Chowk, Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Masomat Rubi Wd/o Late Niranjan Rai, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Donvaghar, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Jharkhand ................Claimant Wife Of The Deceased, District : Giridih, Jharkhand. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent(s) No. 3 : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/07/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 05.10.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 124/2012 (“Smt. Nirmala Devi & Another Vs. Shankar Singh Yadav & Ors.”) whereby an amount of Rs. 5,01,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, is that the claimants are mother, daughter and wife (respondent no. 4) of the deceased, namely, Niranjan Rai have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 45,50,000/- on account of his death in a road accident which was occurred on 31.05.2012. It was alleged that the deceased was working as a labourer and was earned Rs. 3,500/- per month 3 was travelling as a coolie in a tractor (bearing No. JH-02/T-6381) and trolley (bearing No. JH-02/T-6382) to transport soil from Chakla to Daudag, when a rashly and negligently driven truck (bearing No. HR-38P/1774) coming from the opposite direction collided with the tractor near village Chakla, resulting in severe head injuries to Niranjan Rai, who succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. The incident was reported to P.S. Ormanjhi, Ranchi, leading to registration of Criminal Case No. 83/12 under Sections 297, 337, and 304-A IPC. The claimants being financially and emotionally dependent upon the deceased, suffered grave loss. In the proceedings, while non-applicants no. 1, 2, and 4 remained ex parte, the insurance company (respondent No. 3) contested the claim, asserting that the driver lacked a valid driving licence and the vehicle was being used in violation of policy terms, thereby disclaiming liability. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Tribunal framed six issues and, while observing that the vehicle was indeed insured but used in contravention of the insurance policy, held respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 5,01,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the appellants/claimants of the deceased preferred an application claiming a total compensation of Rs. 45,50,000/-. 3. After considering the evidence and documents brought on 4 record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 42,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 14,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 28,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 26 years and the appellants/claimants (i.e. mother and daughter) and respondent No. 4 (i.e. wife) of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 4,76,000/-. Further Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,01,000/- in favour of the appellants/claimants (i.e. mother and daughter) and respondent No. 4 (i.e. wife) of the deceased with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,01,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. 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. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, 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. 3,500/- per month which appears to be proper on accident dated i.e. 31.05.2012. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 3,500/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 42,000/- per annum. 6 11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 26 years and the appellants/claimants (i.e. mother and daughter) and respondent No. 4 (i.e. wife) of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 14,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 28,000/-. 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 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 4,76,000/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (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. 40,000/- each (40,000X3+10%+10%) (increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants (i.e. mother and daughter) and respondent No. 4 (i.e. wife) of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 6,56,000/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 7 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 4,76,000/- 02 Towards consortium (40,000X3+10%+10%) 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/- Total Rs. 6,56,000/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 6,56,000/-. After deducting Rs. 5,01,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,55,000/-. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants (i.e. mother and daughter) and respondent No. 4 (i.e. wife) of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- 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. 14. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing about “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication 8 be made in Hindi (Deonagri) language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, State Legal Services Authority and the DLSA of the concerned area where the claimants resides. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat