1 2025:CGHC:13543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 995 of 2019 1 - Leelaram Sahu S/o Hemlal Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Ghursa, Loharsi, District- Gariyaband, Other Address- Shankar Nagar, Rajim District Gariyaband, Present Address C/o Chintamani Sahu, Metrogreen Saddu, Tahsil & District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Rukhmani Sahu W/o Leelaram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Ghursa, Loharsi, District- Gariyaband, Other Address- Shankar Nagar, Rajim District Gariyaband, Present Address C/o Chintamani Sahu, Metrogreen Saddu, Tahsil & District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Sarika Sahu D/o Leelaram Sahu, Aged About 6 Years Minor Impleaded Through Her Natural Guardian Father Leelaram Sahu R/o Village- Ghursa, Loharsi, District- Gariyaband, Other Address- Shankar Nagar, Rajim District Gariyaband, Present Address C/o Chintamani Sahu, Metrogreen Saddu, Tahsil & District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Girdhari Lal Dhruw, S/o Gangaram Dhruw, Aged About 26 Years R/o Kodamali Police Station- Jugad, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 07-E- 3835). 2 - Shivnath Rajput S/o Prabhunath Rajput, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Dhurvamudi, Police Station- Amlipadar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. Other Address C/o Manmohan Rajput S/o Prabhunath Rajput, Maa Mangla Garage & Auto Repairing Shop. Devbhog, District- Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. Another Address- Shivnath Rajput S/o Late Prabhunath Rajput, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner of The Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 07-E- 3835) Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 3 - The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Near Bajrang Hotel, R.D.A. Building G.E. Raod Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 07-E-3835, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : None present, though served. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 21.03.2025 1. The appellants/claimants by filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') are seeking enhancement of the amount of compensated awarded by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in MACT No. 406/2018 vide award dated 28.03.2019. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 13.01.2018, the deceased/ Janvi and her friend were going to T.B.S. School, Nayapara on their respective cycles. On the way, near petrol pump forest product security post, the respondent No.1 by driving his vehicle No. CG-07-E- 3835 in high speed and negligently dashed the cycle, as a result of which, the deceased sustained several injuries, so she was taken to Primary Health Centre, Rajim and thereafter to VY Hospital, Raipur for treatment, but the injuries proved fatal as she breathed on her last on 24.01.2018. At the time of accident, deceased was 16 years old, student of Class-7th and by helping her father in running of his Janvi Fancy Store earning Rs. 200/- per day. In respect of the aforesaid accident, a Criminal Case No. 49/2018 under Section 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC has been registered against the respondent No. 1. The 3 respondents being driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Thus, the claimants being parents and sister of the deceased, by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claimed a total sum of Rs. 49,56,000/- under various heads as compensation against the death of Janvi.. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their written statement, they denied the material facts of the claim petition and stated that the respondent No. 1 was not the driver of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3. 4. On the other hand, respondent No. 3 has filed its separate written statement, in which it has also denied the contents of the claim petition and pleaded that at the time of the accident, the respondent No. 1 was not having a valid driving license and the respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle without a valid permit and fitness as such they have violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No. 2 has paid the premium of insurance policy through cheque No. 019066, dated 16.12.2017 amounting to Rs. 42,087/- and said cheque has been dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in his account. The respondent No. 2 was duly informed about the same through registered letter and RTO, Durg was also intimated in this respect, but even after the said intimation, respondent No. 2 has not paid the premium, as such the policy has become void since the date of its issuance, so insurance company has no liability to pay any compensation. 5. The Claims Tribunal after hearing counsel for the respective parties 4 and considering the material available on record by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs. 11,02,318/- in favour of the appellant No. 2 with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of award till realization fastening the liability to satisfy the award on respondent Nos. 1 & 2/ driver & owner. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award is partly bad-in-law as well as fact available on record. Learned Claims Tribunal has failed to see that the claimants have examined witnesses and have proved their case, therefore, entire claim ought to have been decreed in favour of the claimants. He would further submit that the respondents have not produced any evidence and not discarded the evidence put by the appellants, the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased, wrongly applied the multiplier looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly deducted the amount on the head of personal expenses and has also not properly awarded the compensation towards conventional heads. So, the award passed by learned Claims Tribunal under conventional heads is on lower side and is liable to be enhanced. 7. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 1, though served. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supported the impugned award and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal after minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and also followed the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, rightly awarded the compensation amount. Being so, there is no need to interfere with the award 5 impugned. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is vivid from record of learned Claims Tribunal that appellants/ claimants filed application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation on the ground that on 13.01.2018, the deceased/ Janvi died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/Girdhari Lal Dhruw. Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence rightly found that appellants No.1 & 3 who are the father and the minor sister of the deceased are not dependent on her and appellant No. 2 is mother and only dependent upon the deceased, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal did not award any compensation in favour of appellant Nos. 1 & 3 and awarded compensation only in favour of appellant No. 2. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal calculated the notional income of the deceased as per guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr vs. Lala & Ors., reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244, and calculated the other conventional heads like funeral expenses, last rites, filial consortium etc on the basis of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Other, reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 and the learned Claims Tribunal has also applied multiplier as per guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court. But it is clear from award of Claims Tribunal that it only awarded Rs. 70,000/- under other conventional heads like funeral expenses, last rites, filial 6 consortium etc in favour of the appellant No.2. Thus, keeping in view all these things, above discussion and in view of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and requires reconsideration. The claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Head Awarded by Tribunal (Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Rs.) Income 36,000/- p.a. 36,000/- p.a. Future prospects Nil Nil Deduction towards personal living and expenses Nil Nil Total loss of dependency Nil Nil Multiplier applied 15 15 Loss of future income 5,40,000/- 5,40,000/- Medical expenses 4,92,318/- 4,92,318/- Conventional heads like funeral expenses, last rites, filial consortium etc. 70,000/- towards filial consortium to appellant No.1- Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium to appellant No.2- Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection to appellant No. 3- Rs. 40,000/- towards last rites- Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs. 1,65,000/- 7 Total compensation awarded 11,02,318/- 11,97,318/- 12. Thus, the total compensation including the amount awarded on conventional heads comes to Rs. 11,97,318/- i.e. (5,40,000+4,92,318+1,65,000) for which the claimants are entitled. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 11,02,318/-, after deducting the same the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 95,000/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned award to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge AMIT PATEL