1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 886 of 2019 1 - Farida Khatun Wd/o Late Mohd. Shamshad Ansari Aged About 30 Years R/o Nepal Gate Charcha, Police Station Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Naaz Ansari S/o Late Mohd. Shamshad Ansari Aged About 1 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Farida Khatun, R/o Nepal Gate Charcha, Police Station Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ruhan Ansari D/o Late Mohd. Shamshad Ansari, Aged About 1 Year 6 Month, Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Farida Khatun, R/o Nepal Gate Charcha, Police Station Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Krishna Autar Sahu S/o Tanguram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Talwapara, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Driver Cum Owner Of Offending Vehicle Mazda Bearing Registration No. C.G. -16-A-2071), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Tabrej Ansari S/o Mohd. Naushad Ansari Aged About 30 Years R/o Nepal Gate Charcha, Police Station Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G. -10-Em-4666)., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No. 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza, Nearby Mining Office, Mahavir Nagar, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Mazda Bearing Registration No. C.G.-16a-2071), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Branch Manager Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company, 3rd Floor, C/o Gurukripa Tower, Nearby I.C.I.C.I. Bank Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G. -10-Em-4666) ., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Nikita Dubey on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Abhishek Choubey on behalf of Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 08.09.2025 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 1408.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) (for short ‘learned Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 40/2017. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 8,95,000/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/ Mohd Shamshad Ansari in an accident that took place on 30.07.2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Mazda) bearing Registration No. CG-16-A-2071 by respondent No.1/ Driver-cum-owner and insured with respondent No.3/Insurance company. As a result of the said accident, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Mohd Shamshad Ansari was aged about 41 years and was working as Mechanic and earning a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4) The respondent No. 1 & 2 filed their written statement and denied the averment fo the facts. Respondent No.3 & 4 /Insurance companies in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 3 5) On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 4 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 6) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased, Mohd. Shamshad Ansari, was aged about 41 years and was working as a Mechanic, earning a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. It is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-, resulting in a lower computation of compensation. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may suitably enhance the award. 7) Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4, on the other hand, supports the impugned award and submits that no documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased was placed on record. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal on the issue of income warrants no interference. It is further submitted that just compensation has already been awarded, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 9) It is true that no documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the actual income of the deceased. As per the pleadings, it has been asserted that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month while working as a Mechanic. The accident took place on 30.07.2016 and it stands undisputed that the wife and two minor children were wholly dependent upon the income of the deceased. 10) It is a matter of common knowledge that persons engaged in the unorganized sector, such as mechanics, artisans, and daily wage workers, seldom maintain 4 formal accounts or documentary proof of their earnings. Absence of such proof cannot by itself be a ground to assess the income at an unreasonably low figure. While determining just compensation, the Court is required to consider the nature of vocation, the skills required, the age of the deceased, the prevailing minimum wages, and the dependency of the family. 11) In the present case, the deceased was aged about 41 years and was engaged in skilled work as a Mechanic. Having regard to the nature of work and applying a reasonable assessment, this Court finds that the income assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs. 6,000/- per month is on the lower side. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to reassess and determine the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/-, which in the considered opinion of this Court would meet the ends of justice. 12) In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S.N Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the deceased 8,000/- 2. Future Prospect 25% 8,000X25%=2,000/- 3. Net Income 8,000+2,000=10,000/- 4. Yearly income 10,000 X12=1,20,000/- 5. Personal expenditure 1/3 1,20,000/3= 40,000/- 6. Yearly dependency 1,20,000-40,000=80,000/- 7. Multiplier of 14 applied to assess loss of dependency 80,000 X14= 11,20,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 9. Loss of estate 15,000/- 10. Spousal and Parental consortium 01,20,000/- (40,000/- each to A-1 to A-3) 5 Total compensation Rs. 12,70,000/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.8,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 12,70,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.8,95,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,75,000/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 08.04.2019. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12) The respondent No. 3 insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from today, on such deposit being made, Rs. 1,00,000/- each shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 2 and 3 in FDR at any Nationalized Bank, until they attained majority, Rs. 75,000/- shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1 for 2 years in FDR at any Nationalized Bank, remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No. 1through bank transaction/account payee cheque. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.12 10:46:28 +0530