1 2025:CGHC:31119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 717 of 2018 1 - Smt. Lata W/o W/o Late Shri Rambharosa Aged About 27 Years By Caste- Nishad, R/o Village Khiloura Post And Thana- Mujgahan, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vaishali D/o D/o Late Shri Rambharosa Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lata. W/o Late Shri Rambharosa, By Caste- Nishad, Aged About 27 Years. R/o Village Bhateli Bhakhara, Post- Bhakhara, Thana- Bhakhara, Tahsil- Kurud, Civil And Revenue District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mona D/o D/o Late Shri Rambharosa Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lata W/o Late Shri Rambharosa, By Caste- Nishad, Aged About 27 Years. R/o Village Bhateli Bhakhara, Post- Bhakhara, Thana- Bhakhara, Tahsil- Kurud, Civil And Revenue District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Samir S/o S/o Late Shri Rambharosa Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lata W/o Late Shri Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Rambharosa, By Caste- Nishad, Aged About 27 Years. R/o Village Bhateli Bhakhara, Post- Bhakhara, Thana- Bhakhara, Tahsil- Kurud, Civil And Revenue District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5 - Gauri S/o D/o Late Shri Rambharosa Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lata W/o Late Shri Rambharosa, By Caste- Nishad,aged About 27 Years. R/o Village Bhateli Bhakhara, Post- Bhakhara, Thana- Bhakhara, Tahsil- Kurud, Civil And Revenue District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Hemraj @ Hemu S/o S/o Bahuraj, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bhatagaon, Post Thana And Tahsil Kurud District- Dhamtari, Present Address- Payal Fertilizers Lalganga Midas Complex Fafadih Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kamlesh Kumar Asrani S/o S/o Shri Kundan Lal Asrani, By Caste- Sindhi, R/o Payal Fertilizers Lalganga Midas Complex Fafadih Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Manager, Icici Lomard General Insurance Company Limited, Office Commercial Building Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 3 (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 186/2016. 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that the appellants, being the wife and minor children of the deceased Rambharosa, have filed the present claim arising out of a fatal motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.07.2016. On the said date, the deceased was traveling near the village Bhendear when he was hit by the offending vehicle, a tractor bearing registration No. C.G. 04/KT/2972, driven by respondent No. 1, and owned by respondent No. 2. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 at the time of the accident. The deceased was immediately admitted to the Government Hospital but succumbed to injuries the following day. A case was registered under Sections 279 and 4 304A IPC against the driver, and upon investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The appellants filed a claim under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 46,00,000/-. While respondents 1 and 2 denied liability, asserting that if any liability arose, it would lie with the insurer, respondent No. 3 contested the claim on grounds of contributory negligence by the deceased, invalid driving license of the driver, and breach of insurance terms. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, framed eight issues and decided all in favor of the appellants, holding respondents liable. However, the Tribunal awarded a meager compensation of Rs. 7,67,000/-, despite the fact that the four minor children were entirely dependent on the deceased, who was their sole provider. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has grievously erred in its approach by disregarding the binding principles laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in regard to the assessment of notional income of the deceased. The presumption of Tribunal of a notional income as low as Rs. 4,500/- per month is manifestly inadequate and does not reflect the true earning capacity of the deceased, who was earning approximately Rs. 15,000/- per month through his tile fitting business, as substantiated by the evidence produced by the appellants. Further, the compensation amount of Rs. 7,67,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is grossly insufficient considering the fact that an entire family has lost their sole 5 breadwinner, and therefore, the award ought to be suitably enhanced to meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal further erred in arbitrarily deducting one-third of the income for personal expenses of the deceased, ignoring the principles enunciated in the landmark judgment of Sarla Verma (2009), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court provided clear guidelines for such deductions based on the age and circumstances of the deceased. The impugned judgment is thus contrary to settled legal principles regarding the computation of income and loss of dependency, especially when the appellants have lost their husband and father, on whom they were wholly dependent. Additionally, the finding regarding income dependency and the failure to consider future prospects of the deceased is bad in law and liable to be set aside, especially in view of the ruling of Supreme Court in Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others reported in 2013 (9) SCC 54, which mandates the consideration of future prospects and appropriate enhancement of compensation accordingly. Lastly, the award passed by Tribunal is palpably inadequate in other heads of damages such as loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, which must be enhanced in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar & Others v. Kishore Dan & Others, reported in 2013 (7) SCC 476. In light of the foregoing, it is prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced substantially in the interest of justice. 6 4. In response, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, submits that the present case involves contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Furthermore, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle, which was allegedly involved, were not made parties to the proceedings. The offending vehicle was operated in clear contravention of the terms of the insurance policy, thereby absolving the respondent insurance company from any liability. The learned Claims Tribunal, despite considering the evidence produced by the parties, erroneously fastened liability upon the insurance company. While the Tribunal has denied the full compensation claimed, it awarded a sum of Rs. 7,67,000/- under various heads. The insurance company submits that this finding is incorrect and prays that the liability of the insurance company be discharged accordingly. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 6. After careful consideration of the entire record, the evidence on record, the pleadings of the parties, and the relevant legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held the respondents liable for the death of the deceased. There is no dispute that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family consisting of his wife and four minor children, who are wholly dependent on him. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driven by respondent No. 1, and 7 the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3 at the time of the accident. Although the insurer contended contributory negligence and breach of insurance policy terms, the finding of tribunal of liability against the insurer stands justified on the evidence and law. However, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs. 7,67,000/- is grossly inadequate and fails to meet the ends of justice given the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation under the following heads, in addition to the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the following manner : Income 6,170/- x 12 Rs. 74,040/- Future Prospect (40% i.e. Rs. 29,616/-) Rs. 1,03,656/- Deduction (1/3 i.e. Rs. 25,914/-) Rs. 77,742/- Multiplier (x17) Rs. 13,21,614/- Loss of Estate (with 10% increase in every three years) Rs. 18,000/- Funeral Expenses (with 10% increase in every three years) Rs. 18,000/- Loss of Spousal Consortium (with 10% increase in every three years) Rs. 48,000/- Loss of Parental/ filial Consortium (Rs. 48,000 x 4) (with 10% increase in every three years) Rs. 1,92,000/- Total Rs. 18,53,052/- 8 7. In light of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced from Rs. 7,67,000/- to Rs. 18,53,052/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The balance amount, if any, already deposited or paid shall be duly adjusted. The impugned award dated 04.01.2018 is accordingly modified to the extent stated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- SS (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh/Raghu Jat