1 2025:CGHC:44424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 984 of 2024 1 - Smt.Radhika Goswami W/o Late Shesh Bharti Goswami Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Patharra, Post - Pipartarai, P.S.- Kota, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Reema Bharti D/o Late Shesh Bharti Goswami Aged About 10 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Radhika Goswami, R/o Village- Patharra, Post - Pipartarai, P.S.- Kota, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Riya Bharti D/o Late Shesh Bharti Goswami Aged About 8 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Radhika Goswami, R/o Village- Patharra, Post - Pipartarai, P.S.- Kota, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - Rajveer Goswami S/o Late Shesh Bharti Goswami Aged About 7 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Radhika Goswami, R/o Village- Patharra, Post - Pipartarai, P.S.- Kota, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 5 - Smt. Nagin Bai Goswami W/o Harlal Goswami Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Patharra, Post - Pipartarai, P.S.- Kota, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 6 - Harlal Bharti Goswami S/o Late Prem Bharti Aged About 73 Years R/o Village- Patharra, Post - Pipartarai, P.S.- Kota, District- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Appellants / claimants versus 1 - Deendayal Rajput S/o Shankar Rajput Aged About 27 Years R/o Chhindbhog, P.S. And Tahsil- Patharia, District- Mungeli C.G. Pin No. 495334 (Driver Of Pick-Up No. Cg-10-Ab-2238). 2 2 - Bhagirathi Bhaskar S/o Radhe Bhaskar Aged About 32 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village- Dumraha, Post And Police Chowki- Chilfi, Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli C.G. (Owner Of Pick-Up No. Cg-10-Ab-2238). 3 - Raghunandan Sahu S/o Tijau Sahu Aged About 42 Years Caste- Teli, R/o H. No. 67, Village- Lohda, Post And P.S.- Sargaon, Tahsil- Patharia, District- Mungeli C.G. (Insurance Holder Of Pick-Up No. Cg-10-Ab-2238). 4 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Office 1-8, Fourth Floor, Gwalani Chamber, Vyapar Vihar Main Road, Bilaspur, P.S.- Tarbahar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. (Insurance Of Pick-Up No. Cg-10-Ab-2238). ... Respondents /non-applicants {Cause title is taken from Case Information System} For Appellants /claimants : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate For Res. No. 4/ Insurance Company : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 01/09/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration and the submissions made by counsel for the appellant, the application is allowed and the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. This is claimants’ appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'MV Act, 1988') for enhancement of compensation awarded by the 3rd Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MACT case No. 1569/2021 vide award dated 25.11.2023. 3 5. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.17,98,200/- in favour of the appellants/claimants as compensation on account of death of Shesh Bharti Goswami in an unfortunate road accident that occurred on 06.12.2020 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Pickup) bearing registration No.CG-10-AB-2238 by respondent No.1/driver, which was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No.4/ Insurance Company. 6. The appellants/claimants, who are unfortunate wife, daughters and parents of deceased – Shesh Bharti Goswami, had filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,85,000/-. As per pleadings in the claim application, the deceased, who was aged about 39 years at the time of accident, was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as Supervisor under the Railway Contractor, therefore, the said compensation was claimed. Respondents No. 1 to 3 resisted the claim application on various grounds whereas Respondent No. 4 / insurance company took a plea that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 7. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded afore-stated compensation in favour of the claimants, fastening liability of payment of compensation upon respondent No. 4 / Insurance Company. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Claims Tribunal has legally erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.7,800/- per 4 month i.e. Rs. 93,600/- per annum whereas deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as Supervisor under one Railway Contractor, but, learned Tribunal has not considered the same and awarded low amount of compensation, which deserves to be enhanced suitably. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 4/Insurance Company while supporting the impugned award would submit that appellants/claimants have failed to prove income of the deceased by adducing any documentary evidence in this regard, therefore, after proper appreciation of evidence & material available on record, income of the deceased has rightly been assessed by the Claims Tribunal and thereby awarded just & proper compensation to the claimants, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 11.The issue involved in the appeal that whether in the facts & circumstances of the case, amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper ? Though of-course, no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants/appellants to prove the income of the deceased, but considering the fact that the accident had occurred on 06.12.2020 and also considering the fact that six persons were dependent upon the income of the deceased including three minor and old age parents, thus, looking to the inflation, nature of job and minimum wage prevailing at that time, this Court is inclined to assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 11,000/-per month. 5 12.In view of above and taking guidance from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court hereby computes the compensation in the following manner - 1 Monthly salary Rs.11,000/- 2 Future prospects 40% (11000 + 4400) Rs. 15400/- 3 Yearly income (15400x12) Rs.1,84,800/- 4 1/4th deduction for personal expenses (184,800-46,200) Rs.1,38,600/- 5. Multiplier of 15 (138600 X 15) Rs.20,79,000/- 6. Spousal Consortium + Funeral expenses + loss of Estate +Rs.70,000/- 7. Filial Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- each to appellants No.2 to 6) +Rs.2,00,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.23,49,000/- 13.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 17,98,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 23,49,000/-. The appellants are entitled for a further sum of Rs. 5,50,800/- over and above the amount of Rs. 17,98,200/- awarded 6 by the Tribunal. The above enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 5,50,800/- shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of appeal i.e. 09.05.2024 till its actual payment. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award stands modified to the above extent. 14.The respondent No. 4/Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited is granted 60 days' time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 5,50,800/- along with interest before the concerned Tribunal. After depositing the enhanced amount of compensation by respondent No.4/insurance company, learned Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate order for apportionment, investment and disbursement. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.09 18:15:42 +0530