1 2025:CGHC:13515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 975 of 2019 Ku. Supriya Bhatt D/o Rakesh Bhatt, aged about 22 years, R/o House No. 24/7, Civil Line Durg, Tahsil and District-Durg Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant Versus 1 - Dinesh Patel S/o Avaji Bhai Patel, aged about 46 years, R/o Kalpana Trading Company Ring Road, No. 2, Near Khamtarai Police Station Veergaon, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ........(Driver of offending Vehicle Car No. C. G. 04/H.B./2582). 2 - M/s Kalpana Trading Company, Proprietor Jayanti Lal, R/o Kalpana Trading Company, Ring Road No. 02, Near Khamtarai Police Station, Veergaon, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. .....(Owner of offending Vehicle Car No. C. G. 04/H.B./2582). 3 - The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office G. E. Road, Akashganga, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ......... (Insurer of offending Vehicle Car No. C. G.-04/H. B./ 2582). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. G.V. K. Rao, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 21.03.2025. 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 57/2016, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,42,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 09.01.2016, the claimant’s brother was on his way from Bharti Engineering College Pulgaon to Village Anda, and when he reached near Village Kuthrei BEC Food Factory, at that time, the offending vehicle Swift Car bearing registration No. CG/04/H.B./2582 being ridden by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently dashed the vehicle of the brother of the claimant/appellant from the front side, due to which the brother of the claimant/appellant died on the spot. F.I.R. regarding the alleged accident was lodged at Police Station- Anda based upon which crime bearing No. 07/2016 under sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC was registered against respondent No.1-driver. 3. On account of aforesaid accident, the appellant/claimant instituted a claim petition under section 166 of the Act of 1988 by submitting inter alia that the deceased was a young boy, at the time of the accident, the brother of the claimant, a 27 years old, was taking care of himself and 3 his family as he was working as a lecturer in Bharti Engineering College by earning an income of Rs.17,500/- per month. Thus, he used to earn Rs. 2,10,000/- per year. Since the age of the deceased was 27 years, according to the multiplier of 17, there has been a loss of income and dependency of Rs. 2,10,000 x 17= 35,70,000, however, the learned trial Court has rightly mentioned the multiplier, but wrongly used the multiplier of 18 and the same needs to be rectified. Therefore, total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.78,10,000/- has been claimed under various heads. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 27,42,500/-. Hence, this appeal filed by the claimant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a meager amount under the conventional head of compensation even without considering the future prospects of his income, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be enhanced suitably in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also learned Tribunal has erred in awarding interest on the amount of compensation at only 6 %, whereas it should have been awarded @ 9 %. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the appellant, supported the impugned award and submitted that the impugned award has been passed by the Tribunal keeping in view all the relevant aspects of the matter including the income of the 4 deceased. Being so, there is no need to interfere with the award impugned. 7. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is clear from award of learned Claims Tribunal that the learned Tribunal calculated the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 17,500/- and so far as the age of the deceased to be of 27 years is concerned, the same appears to be just and proper, as such applying multiplier of 17. However, Tribunal was justified in making ½ deduction from the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses as the claimant is sister of deceased and the deceased is unmarried brother of the claimant/appellant. However, it appears to have fallen in error in assessing the other heads. Therefore, the claimant/appellant is held entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Particular Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of Dependency 26,77,500/- 26,77,500/- 2. For Love and Affection 30,000/- 50,000/- 4. For Funeral Expenses 25,000/- 40,000/- 5. For Loss of Estate 10,000/- 25,000/- Total 27,42,500/- 27,92,500/- 9. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 27,92,500/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs.27,42,500/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 50,000/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 5 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U.K. Raju