1 2025:CGHC:23094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 630 of 2017 Judgment reserved on : 18.03.2025 Judgment delivered on: 11. 06.2025 1 - Smt. Rajkumari Kashyap W/o Late Pooran Lal Kashyap, Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Jyoti Kirana Stores, 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinay Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Pooran Lal Kashyap, Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Jyoti Kirana Stores, 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Geeta Kashyap D/o Late Pooran Lal Kashyap, Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Jyoti Kirana Stores, 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Neeraj Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Pooran Lal Kashyap, Aged About 21 Years R/o Near Jyoti Kirana Stores, 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kumari Kriti Kashyap D/o Late Pooran Lal Kashyap, Aged About 19 Years R/o Near Jyoti Kirana Stores, 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...Appellants versus 1 - Neeraj Kumar Pathak S/o Ramswaroop Pathak, R/o Geetanjali City Face-02, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..............(Driver of The Vehicle) 2 - (Deleted), Bhramar Pradhan As Per Honble Court Order Dated 13-06-2024. 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd., Office Charli Outle Show Room, Gaurishankar Temple Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Revenue And Civil Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ..............(Insurer Of The Vehicle) ... Respondents Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 _____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimants/ appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') against the impugned award dated 25.02.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 301/2014, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,93,566/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.09.2013 at about 8.00 am, the deceased/Pooranlal was going to Dongargarh from Bilaspur with his colleagues with regard to the department work in the vehicle Scorpio Registration No. CG-13-C-9206, respondent No. 1 driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and being turned turtle at Village- Jhal (Bemetara) due to which deceased/Pooranlal Kashyap sustained severe injuries on his body. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Primary Health Centre, Bemetara for his primary treatment, as his health was deteriorating, he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, but his condition did not improve and he died during the treatment on 14.09.2013. The accident was reported to the Police Station- Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) vide Crime No. 558/2013 against the respondent No. 1. 3 3. On account of aforesaid accident, the appellants/claimants instituted a claim petition under section 166 of the Act of 1988 by submitting inter alia that at the time of the accident, the deceased/Puranlal Kashyap, was taking care of himself and the claimants also by earning an income of Rs. 28,913/- per month by doing job as Revenue Inspector. Therefore, total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.82,92,000/- has been claimed under various heads. 4. Respondent No.3/Insurance company in its written statement pleaded that respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving license and moreover, the present appellants/claimants are claiming for hefty amount, the same falls under the breach and violation of insurance policy, liability, if any, to pay compensation is of respondents No. 1 and 2/ owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the impugned award is bad-in-law as well as fact available on record, hence it is liable to be awarded fully. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5th towards deceased’s personal and living expenses as the number of dependents in this case are five. He further submits that the Tribunal has also awarded a meager amount under the conventional heads and the same is liable to be enhanced in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi.1 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the appellants and submitted that the impugned award has been passed by the Tribunal 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 keeping in view all the relevant aspects of the matter including the income of the deceased. Being so, there is no need to interfere with the award impugned. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on 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 Rs. 18,93,566/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Tribunal calculated the income of the deceased on the basis of salary slip of deceased Puranlal vide Ex. P/16, which shows that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 28,913/- at the time of accident. The total salary claimed by the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal and Rs. 28,913/- per month and annually Rs. 3,46,956/- was held to be the actual salary of the deceased and after deducting 10% income tax from the said amount, Rs. 3,12,261/-, which forms the actual annual income of the deceased. The said income is based upon the salary slip of the deceased. So far as determination of age of the deceased to be 60 years is concerned, the same appears to be just and proper. Further, the Tribunal was justified in making 1/3rd deduction from the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses as also in applying multiplier of 9, which was based on the guideline of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma 5 (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another. 2 . In view of judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side in the other heads also and the same requires reconsideration. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the compensation in the following manner S. No. Head Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.) 01. Income of the deceased Rs. 3,12,261/- (28,913x12=3,46,956 - 34,695) Rs. 3,12,261/- (28,913x12=3,46,956- 34,695) 02. Deduction towards personal and living expenses (1/3rd of 3,12,261=Rs. 1,04,087/- ) Rs. 2,08,174/- ((1/3rd of 3,12,261=Rs. 1,04,087/- ) Rs. 2,08,174/- 03. Multiplier of 9 to be applied 2,08,174x9=Rs. 18,73,566/- 2,08,174x9=Rs. 18,73,566/- 04. Towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Loss of spousal and parental consortium to claimants No. 1 to 5= Rs. 40,000/- each Total= Rs. 2,00,000/- 05. Towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- For loss of estate= Rs. 15,000/- For funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/- total = Rs. 30,000/- Total compensation Rs. 18,93,566/- Rs.21,03,566/- 11. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimant/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. Rs. 21,03,566/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 18,93,566/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned award to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge AMIT PATEL