1 2025:CGHC:20212 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 867 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Maruti Height, 4th Floor, Beside R. K. Mall, Aamanaka, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer). ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Dhanmat Bai W/o Late Shri Nazru Markam, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No.6, Majgao Road, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pappu Markam, S/o Late Shri Nazru Markam Aged About 10 Years Minors Are Represented Through Their Natural Guardian Being Their Mother, Smt. Dhanmat Bai, R/o Ward No.6, Majgao Road, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jyoti Markam D/o Late Shri Nazru Markam, Aged About 4 Years Minors Are Represented Through Their Natural Guardian Being Their Mother, Smt. Dhanmat Bai, R/o Ward No.6, Majgao Road, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Durgesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Sitaram Sahu, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Gunbod, thana And Tehsil Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 5 - Bharat Satyavanshi, S/o Shri Kashiram Satyavanshi, Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 6 Majgao Road, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. (Owner). ... Respondents Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.05.05 12:25:21 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment o n Board 02 / 0 5 / 202 5 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 against the award dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 167/2014 (Dhanmat Bai & Ors. vs. Durgesh Kumar Sahu & Ors.). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, were that the deceased Lallu @ Dhanesh was went to Mahanadi of Dongridih for loading of sand in offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. CG-09-B-1203. After the loading of sand in the aforesaid truck, the driver/respondent No.4 of the offending vehicle drove the truck in a rash and negligent manner on the valley, due to which deceased Lallu @ Dhanesh crashed under the wheel of aforesaid truck, on account of which Lallu @ Dhanesh sustained grievous injuries and died when he was escorted to the hospital. A report was made to the concerned police station, and a crime was registered. 3. A claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed by the mother, brother and sister (respondents No. 1 to 3) of the deceased (Lallu @ Dhanesh) claiming a total compensation of Rs. 91,50,000/-. After due consideration, the Tribunal passed a total award of Rs. 9,37,200/- in favour of the claimants (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) and against the insurer/appellant. Hence, the appeal. 3 4. The appellant/insurance company argues that the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is on the higher side, as the deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses was wrongly calculated, since the deceased was unmarried, it should be 1/2. Thus, the compensation may be reduced suitably. 5. No one appeared for respondents during final hearing of this case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned 7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the quantum part is concerned, from the evidence presented by the claimants' side, it is clear that the age of the deceased was 25 years on the date of the accident, and he was a non-salaried person. Therefore, the future prospects would be 40%, which has rightly been applied by the claims tribunal. However, in the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500 per month. The accident occurred on 25.04.2014. If, as per the notification by Chhattisgarh State, the minimum wages of even an unskilled labour at that point of time is taken Rs.5,468/- per month i.e. Rs. 65,616/- per annum. Further, if 40% of the income is added towards future prospects and the deceased was unmarried at that time, so deduction would be 1/2nd of the income, and after deduction in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 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 as 25, after applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency would be 4 calculated, which has rightly been applied by the claims tribunal. In addition, as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards love & affection, totaling Rs.1,20,000. They are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. As such, on being calculated as a whole, the compensation amount would be more than the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 8. In such a situation, the argument of the Insurance Company that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation in favour of the claimants, is not found acceptable. 9. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H. L. Sahu