1 2025:CGHC:45612 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 738 of 2018 1 - Bunde Lal Patel S/o S/o Late Agharu Ram Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ratapali, P. S. Komakhan, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ..............Claimants., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Neera Bai W/o W/o Bunde Lal Patel, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Ratapali, P. S. Komakhan, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sanjeev Patel S/o S/o Bunde Lal Patel Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Bunde Lal Patel (Appellant No. 1), R/o Village Ratapali, P. S. Komakhan, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sanjay Patel, S/o S/o Bunde Lal Patel, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Bunde Lal Patel. (Appelalant No. 1). R/o Village Ratapali, P. S. Komakhan, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o S/o Shri M. R. Yadav, Aged About 48 Years R/o Main Road Geedam, Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. .........Driver Of Truck No. C. G. 04, Zc- 0370)., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhulau Ram Kenwat, S/o S/o Shri Heera Singh Kenwat, Aged About 40 Years R/o Tatiband, Ring Road No. 2, Police Station Tatiband, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ................Owner Of Truck No. C. G.-04, Zc-0370_., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Madeena Building, Katchari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ................(Insurer Of Truck No. C. G. 04, Zc- 0370)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2018, which is an application for condonation 3 of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I. A. No 1/2018 is allowed. 3. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 30.6.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Fourth Additional Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in Claim Case No. 128/2013 whereby an amount of Ra 5,30,000/- with interest 9% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 4. Brief facts of the case, is that appellants No. 1 and 2 are the parents, and appellants No 3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased Sandeep Patel, who lost his life in an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1 Respondent No 1 was the driver of the offending vehicle. respondent No 2 was its owner, and the said vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3 at the time of the incident. The learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as five issues for adjudication of the matter, and after considering the documents available on record, vide impugned award dated 30.06.2017, awarded only a sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- while dismissing the 4 remaining claim. 5. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs 36,000/- per annum, Alter adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 18,000/-, the annual incomer comes to Rs. 54,000/-. After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 27,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 27,000/- Considering the age of the deceased to be 20 years and the appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased. the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 4,05,000/-. Further Rs 1,00,000/- towards love and affection and Rs 25,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,30,000/-in favour of the parents of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs 5,30,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He 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. 5 7. 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. 8. None for respondent Nos 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 4646/- per 6 month as per minimum wages the annual income comes to Rs 55,752/- 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. 22,301/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 78,053/-. 13. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 20 years and the appellant/claimants are the parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs 39,027/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs 39,027/-. 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. 7,02,486/-. 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. (40,000/-X2+10% +10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 96,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the 7 appellants/ claimants i.e. parents of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 8,34,486/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calcuation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 7,02,486/- 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. 8,34,486/- 14. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 8,34,486/- After deducting Rs 5,30,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,04,486/-. 15. 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. 3,04,486/- 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 award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to 8 the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 16. The liability in the present case has been duly fastened upon the owner as well as the driver of the offending vehicle, both of whom had chosen to remain ex parte before the learned Tribunal, and consequently, the proceedings were carried out in their absence, resulting in the fastening of liability upon them. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat