1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1174 of 2015 1. Gorelal, S/o Purushottam Khande, aged about 45 Years, 2. Sukhin, W/o Gorelal, aged about 40 Years, Caste - Suryavanshi, Both are R/o Village And Police Station - Pamgarh, Tahsil and District Revenue and Civil - Janjgir – Champa, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Rajendra Kumar, S/o Dudhnath, aged about 22 Years, R/o Village – Pendra (Near State Bank Amarpur Road), Tahsil and Police Station - Pendra, District Revenue and Civil - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Nandram Maravi, S/o Kunwarlal Maravi (Died), Through LRS 2.A - Dhirja Maravi W/o Late Nandlal Maravi, 2.B - Vikas Maravi, S/o Late Nandlal Maravi, 2.C- Vikesh Kumar Maravi S/o Late Nandlal Maravi, R/o Village - Tiwarata, Police Station - Pali, District Revenue And Civil - Korba Chhattisgarh 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through - Division Manager, Divisional Office - Rama Trade Centre, Near Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Revenue and Civil - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2A to 2C : None. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta along with Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 21/04/2025 1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 29.06.2015 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.04.23 11:08:52 +0530 2 District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. in Claim Case No.09/2014, awarding total compensation of Rs.2,97,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization while fastening liability primarily upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 12.02.2012, deceased- Amit Kumar Khande, earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working in Sonalika Tractor Agency, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero bearing registration No.CG10-F-9884 (hereinafter referred as 'offending vehicle') by non- applicant no.1/driver of offending vehicle- Rajendra Kumar. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2- Nandram Maravi (died) and insured with non-applicant no.3/Insurance Company. Since non-applicant No.2/owner of the offending vehicle died, therefore, his legal heirs are arrayed as non-applicant Nos. 2A to 2C. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants i.e. parents of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.11,70,000/-, the Tribunal, considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned above. 4. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- on notional basis, whereas it should be Rs.4,277/- per month as per the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and that amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is 3 also on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably. He also submits that the Tribunal has also wrongly applied the multiplier 16, whereas it should be 18, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 22 years. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 & Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Lastly, he submits that against the impugned award, Insurance Company had filed the separate appeal i.e. MAC No.1108/2015, however, the same has been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2022. 5. Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that against the impugned award Insurance Company had filed the above mentioned separate appeal on the ground that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, however, the said appeal has been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench as stated above. He further submits that the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, has awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. Lastly, he submits that the interest at the rate of 9% awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side, which needs to be reduced suitably. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. As regards the income of the deceased- Amit Kumar Khande, though 4 the claimants in the claim petition have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working in Sonalika Tractor Agency, but no documentary evidence in support of thereof has been adduced by the claimants to substantiate the said pleading. However, the Tribunal, on its own, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. Therefore, considering the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,277/- i.e. Rs.51,324/- per annum. 8. As regard non-grant of future prospects by the Tribunal, it is pertinent to mention here that the accident occurred on 12.02.2012 and at that time, the deceased- Amit Kumar Khande was a young boy of aged 22 years as is evident from Final Report (Ex.P-2). The Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are below 40 years. Therefore, in the present case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 22 years, the applicable percentage towards future prospects would be 40%. 9. As regards the multiplier 16 used by the Tribunal, in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has prescribed the multiplier of 18 for the age group between 21 to 25 years. Therefore, in the instant case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 22 years, the applicable multiplier would be 18 instead of 16 as used by the Tribunal. Further, taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner:- 5 Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased @ Rs.4,277/- per month Rs.51,324/- per annum 02. 40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.20,529/- Rs.51,324/- + Rs.20,529/-= Rs.71,853/- 03. ½ deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.35,926/- (Rs.71,853/- - Rs.35,926/- = Rs.35,926/-) 04. Multiplier of 18 to be applied Rs.35,926/- x 18 = Rs.6,46,668/- 05. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- 06. Towards loss of filial consortium to claimants (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.80,000/- Total Compensation Rs.7,56,668/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,97,000/-, after deducting the same from Rs.7,56,668/-, the appellants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.4,59,668/-. 10. So far as interest part is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rate of inflation and prevailing rate of interest at the relevant time, I am of the view that the rate of interest i.e 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization, as awarded by the Tribunal, is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh