1 2025:CGHC:31762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 766 of 2018 1 - Smt. Biras Bai W/o Late Tulsiram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Ghuthiya Thana Pathariya District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Priti D/o Late Tulsiram Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Biras Bai (Appellant No.1) R/o Village Ghuthiya Thana Pathariya District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Jyoti D/o Late Tulsiram Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Biras Bai (Appellant No.1) R/o Village Ghuthiya Thana Pathariya District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Roshan Kumar S/o Late Tulsiram Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Biras Bai (Appellant No.1) R/o Village Ghuthiya Thana Pathariya District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Priya D/o Late Tulsiram Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Biras Bai (Appellant No.1) R/o Village Ghuthiya Thana Pathariya District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sunil Kumar S/o Late Tulsiram Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Biras Bai (Appellant No.1) R/o Village Ghuthiya Thana Pathariya District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) ...Appellant(s) 2 versus 1 - (Deleted) Moh. Shamim Khan S/o Late Moh. Shafi Khan (Died) (Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09.07.2025) 2 - Smt. Kulvinder Kour W/o Hardeep Singh Bhatiya Aged About 40 Years R/o Moti Talabpar Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Rama Tred Center Old Bus Stand In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Thana Civil Line Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Prerana Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (09.07.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 27.01.2018 passed by 8th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 710/2016 awarding a compensation of Rs.11,22,060/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that on 19.11.2016, the vehicle, Tanker bearing Registration Number CG 17 H 1325, was being driven by Respondent No.1. The said vehicle was owned by Respondent No. 2, and Respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the vehicle. 3 The insurance policy for the said vehicle was valid for the period from 06.11.2016 to 05.11.2017. 3. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that the applicants No.1 (wife of the deceased, Tulsiram) to 6, are claimants in this case, on 19.11.2016, Tulsiram was traveling along with Vishwajeet Vishwas when a tanker bearing registration number CG 17 H 1325, coming from Raipur and being driven by Respondent No.1, dashed their vehicle from behind with great force, akin to a hammer blow. As a result of the said collision, Tulsiram sustained grievous injuries on his legs, head, waist, chest, and abdomen, resulting in excessive bleeding due to multiple fractures. Despite all efforts, he succumbed death due to his injuries at the spot. An FIR was lodged at Police Station, Sargaon, on the basis of which offences under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were registered against the driver of the offending tanker. The said vehicle, tanker number CG 17 H 1325, was found to be registered under the ownership of Respondent No.2, and was duly insured Respondent No.3 at the time of the incident. The certified copy of the FIR was forwarded by Police Station, Sargaon to the local jurisdictional authority of Tal–Patharia. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the investigating officer before the competent Court, At the time of the incident, the deceased, Tulsiram, was a 44-year-old individual engaged in masonry work, earning a monthly income of 15,000/-, which was the sole source of ₹ livelihood for the applicants. Due to the death of Tulsiram, the applicants have been deprived of the aforesaid income, as Tulsiram was the only 4 earning member of the family upon whom the applicants were dependent. Consequently, the applicants have been placed in a state of financial hardship, the offending vehicle, a tanker bearing registration number CG 17 H 1325, was being driven by Respondent No.1, was owned by Respondent No.2, and was insured with Respondent No.3, with the insurance policy being valid on the date of the accident. Therefore, the appellants/claimants preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount. 4. When the claim application for compensation was filed by the present appellants/claimants of deceased before the Claims Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of the alleged vehicle, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs 6,648/- per month i.e. Rs.79,776/- per annum in absence of any documentary proof of income. The deceased was aged about 44 years and the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased and the deduction was ¼th towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.19,944/- so the future prospect was 25% as the age of the deceased was between 40 – 50 years, therefore, the further prospect was Rs.59,832/- x 25/100 = Rs.14,958/- hence the annual income of the deceased was taken as Rs.74,790/-, after applying multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency calculated to Rs. 10,47,060/- and on other heads Rs.75,000/- has been calculated and awarded total compensation of Rs.11,22,060/- (Rs. 10,47,060/- + Rs.75,000/- = Rs.11,22,060/-) with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 5 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in disbelieving the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, who were duly examined in support of their pleadings. The rejection of their statements amounts to a failure in appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased earned a monthly income of only 6,648/-. On the ₹ contrary, the correct monthly income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at 15,000/-, as stated in Para 4 of the pleadings. In the ₹ present case, a future prospect of 25% was rightly considered, in light of the precedents set by this Hon’ble Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others 1 , . The learned Claims Tribunal further committed a serious error in deducting one-fourth (25%) towards the personal expenses of the deceased. It ought to have considered that the deceased left behind a widow, three minor daughters, and two minor sons, making a total of six dependents. Accordingly, the deduction towards personal expenses should have been restricted to one-tenth (10%), as held by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (surpa), as well as in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan and Others, 2 and New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gopali and Others, 3 . The findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside. The 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2013) 7 SCC 476 3 (2012) 12 SCC 192 6 Tribunal’s conclusions run contrary to the documentary evidence and oral testimony on record, reflecting a failure to properly consider the facts in their correct perspective. The learned Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum, whereas the applicable rate as per law is 9% per annum, warranting suitable enhancement of the interest awarded. In light of the above, the appellants respectfully pray that the impugned award be set aside and the claim be enhanced as per the submissions made herein. 6. No representation was made on behalf of Respondents No. 1 & 2. 7. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company that in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference of this Court and no further enhancement is required to be made, therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed. 8. I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. 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. 10. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.11,22,060/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation 7 in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 11. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6,648/-. per month from his business, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate that the trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 10.09.2015. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.79,776/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra). 12. The deceased was aged about 44 years and was unmarried and the claimants are the parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 25% which comes to Rs.19,944/- (Rs.79,776/4 = Rs.19,944/-). In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , 4 and Pranay Sethi (supra), after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.59,832 + Rs.14958/- (Rs.59,832/- x 25/100 = Rs.14,958/-), the annual income comes to Rs.74,790/-. Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 14 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.10,47,060/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- (10% 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 8 increase in every three years), for funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years) and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, 5 the claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/- (10% increase in every three years) each i.e. Rs.2,88,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,71,060/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors 6 , this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs.10,47,060 /- 02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 03 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs.48,000/- Rs. 2,88,000/- Total Rs.13,71,060/- 13. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.13,71,060/- from Rs.11,22,060/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,49,000/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 14. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 14.12.2016 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. 5 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 6 (2011) 1 SCC 343 9 15. The Registry is directed to intimate the claimants in writing regarding the enhanced amount. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh/Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA