1 2025:CGHC:36253 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1693 of 2017 1 - New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Office, Madina Building Kutchery Chowk, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh .............Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04 H.Z. 1157, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Meena Khatri W/o Rajkumar Khatri, Aged About 37 Years R/o Mahaveer Nagar Thana New Rajendra Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Address Krishna Nagar, Kota, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajkumar Khatri S/o Salikram Khatri, Aged About 38 Years R/o Mahaveer Nagar Thana New Rajendra Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Address Krishna Nagar, Kota, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - Tomeshwar Dhankar S/o Kumbhiram Dhankar, Aged About 28 Years R/o Subhash Chowk, Birgaon, Thana Urla District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Presentl Resident Village Pahra Thana Ahiwara, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04 H Z 1157, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Indra Kumar Sahu S/o Ramsubhag Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Sai Kripa, Godavari Nagar, Yash Vihar, Motinagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner Of Offending Vehicle Registered Truck No. C.G. 04 H Z 1157, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 & 4 : None. MAC No. 218 of 2018 1 - Smt. Meena Khatri W/o W/o Raj Kumar Khatri, Aged About 37 Years R/o Mahavir Nagar, P. S. New Rajendra Nagar, Krishna Nagar Kota, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ......................... (Claimants)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Raj Kumar Khatri S/o S/o Salik Ram Khatri Aged About 38 Years R/o Mahavir Nagar, P. S. New Rajendra Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Kota, 3 Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..........................(Claimants)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Tameshwar Dhankar S/o S/o Kumbhi Dhankar, Aged About 28 Years R/o Subhash Chowk, Birgaon, P. S. Urla, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..........................(Driver Of Truck No. C. G. 14, H. Z. 1157),, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Indra Kumar Sahu S/o S/o Ramsubhag Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Sai Kripa, Godavari Nagar, Yash Vihar, Moti Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .....................( Owner Truck No. C. G. -14, H. Z. 1157),, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - New India Insurance Comapny Limited, Through The Divisional Manager, Madina Building Kachhari Chowk, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ........................(Insurer Truck No. C. G. -14, H. Z. 1157)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. 4 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 9.8.2017 has been passed. MAC No. 1693/2017 is insurer’s appeal and MAC No. 218/2017 is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 9.8.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of 1st Additional Presiding Officer, Raipur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 241/16. MAC No. 1693/2017 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 21.12.2015 at about 6:00 PM, deceased Rahul was driving a motorcycle when a Highway Truck bearing registration No. CG-04-HZ/1157 dashed the motorcycle from behind, resulting in his death. After the death of unmarried Rahul, his mother, respondent No. 1 – Smt. Meena Khatri, aged about 37 years, and respondent No. 2 – Rajkumar, aged abot 38 years, filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The deceased Rahul was a student of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and studied at Daffodils English School, Kota, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (School Code No. 10262). As per the marksheet issued by the said school, Rahul was a student of the Mathematics branch for the academic session 2011-2013, and 5 his date of birth was 12.09.1997. Thus, at the time of the accident on 21.12.2015, his age was 18 years, 3 months, and 9 days. Despite these facts, witness Manish Nathani falsely deposed before the Tribunal that Rahul had been working as a Manager in his tent house business for about two and a half years prior to his death, which was factually incorrect since Rahul was still a minor and a regular student. Even the mother of the deceased, AW-1 Smt. Meena Khatri, in para-6 of her statement, incorrectly denied that her son was a regular student of the school, whereas the school records clearly establish the contrary. Further, certain fabricated documents, namely Ex. P-9C and Ex. P-10C, purportedly issued in the name of "Hariom Tent House" and "Hariom Kiraya Bhandar," were produced to create a false impression of Rahul’s employment and income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, the records prove that Rahul remained a student and was not in employment. Moreover, the issue of contributory negligence also arises, as eye-witness Afroj Khan admitted in para-7 of his statement that the motorcycle being driven by the deceased himself collided with the stationary vehicle, and apart from the said collision, no other vehicle including the truck was involved. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad in law and deserves 6 to be set aside. He further submits that the first ground of challenge is that the deceased Rahul was a student, not an employee or earning member, and, therefore his income could not have been assessed on the basis of salary certificate but ought to have been considered only on the basis of minimum wages. He contends that the documents relied upon by the claimants, namely salary certificate (Exhibit P-8) and attendance register (Exhibit P-10C), are contradictory in nature, as in Exhibit P-8 it is shown that the deceased was on leave on the date of the accident, whereas in Exhibit P-10C it is shown that he was present, thereby clearly establishing that the alleged employer has deposed falsely in the interest of the claimants. He further submits that as per FIR (Exhibit P-2), the said employer Manish was a near relative of the deceased and in fact himself lodged the report before the concerned police station, which raises serious doubt about the authenticity of his testimony as AW-3 before the Tribunal. He further submits that the appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence, enclosing the marksheet of the deceased issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, which clearly shows his date of birth as 12-09-1997, establishing that he was only 18 years and 3 months old at the time of accident, thereby confirming that he was a student and not a salaried employee. He submits that the 7 Tribunal has wrongly held the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month on the basis of false and fabricated documents, which is wholly unsustainable, and the assessment of compensation ought to have been made strictly on the basis of minimum wages. The second ground raised by counsel is that claimant No. 2, namely Rajkumar, the father of the deceased aged about 38 years, was not dependent on his son, as evident from the statement of claimant Mina Khatri (AW-1) in para 8, wherein she categorically admitted that her husband was working as an auto driver, hence the father is not entitled for any share in compensation. The third ground urged is that the Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount of compensation beyond the permissible limits, which is wholly unjustified and contrary to law. Therefore, the appellant respectfully prays that the impugned award be set aside or suitably modified in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) supports the award passed by the Tribunal and submits that the findings recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence, and no case for interference is made out. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8 6. The Tribunal, while considering the evidence, has rightly discarded the doubtful testimony of the employer regarding alleged employment of the deceased and has taken a reasonable view while assessing his notional income. It is well settled that in the case of students or non-earning members, notional income is required to be determined on the basis of surrounding circumstances and prospects of the deceased. The Tribunal has considered the age, academic background and future prospects of the deceased and fixed a reasonable income for computation of just compensation. 7. As regards the dependency of the parents, it is trite law that both parents are considered dependent on an unmarried son, irrespective of their individual earnings, as they have a legitimate expectation of support and maintenance. The argument that the father was earning as an auto driver and therefore not dependent is without merit and contrary to settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court finds that the Tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier, awarded conventional heads in accordance with law, and the overall computation cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. The compensation awarded is just, fair and proper. 9 9. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. The award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 218/2018 11. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,80,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 90,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 90,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 18 years and the appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 16,20,000/-. Further Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 50,000/- towards love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 17,00,000/- in favour of the parents of the deceased with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- which is 10 not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She 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. 13. 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. 14. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the 11 deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 15,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,80,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 72,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,52,000/-. 19. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 18 years and the appellant/claimants are the parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 1,26,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,26,000/-. 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 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 22,68,000/-. 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. (40,000X2+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every 12 three years) i.e. Rs. 96,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and son of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 24,00,000/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 22,68,000/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X2+10% +10%). Rs. 96,000/- 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. 24,00,000/- 20. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 24,00,000/-. After deducting Rs. 17,00,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,00,000/-. 21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. parents of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- 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 13 award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat