NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 700 of 2025 1 - Smt. Ahilya Bai Prajapati, W/o Late Jaleshwar Prajapati, aged about 25 years, R/o Pandrapathra, Tehsil Kota, Post Belgahna, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Shivani, D/o Late Jaleshwar Prajapati, aged about 3 years Minor Represented Through Her Natural Guardian Mother (Appellant No. 1), R/o Pandrapathra, Tehsil Kota, Post Belgahna, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Bahorik Ram Prajapati, S/o Late Chauthram Prajapati, aged about 66 years, R/o Pandrapathra, Tehsil Kota, Post Belgahna, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Champa Bai Prajapati, W/o Late Bahorik Ram Prajapati, aged about 61 years, R/o Pandrapathra, Tehsil Kota, Post Belgahna, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Appellants Versus 1 - Vinod Kumar Suryavanshi, S/o Manharan Suryavanshi, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Sendri, Ps Koni, Tehsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 10 Nc 9949) 2 - Dwarkanath Prasad, S/o Radhakrishna Prasad, aged about 44 years, R/o Village Chautana, Ps Kota, District Mungeli (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 10 Nc 9949) 3 - The New India General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Rama Trade Center, Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G.10 Nc 9949) --- Respondents __________________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Shri Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : None despite service. For Respondent No.3 : Smt. Swati Agrawal and Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocates appeared on behalf of Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 01 /04/2026 1. The appellants / claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 22.08.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”), Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 775/2023 . ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.10 10:41:25 +0530 -2- 2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.38,92,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.23,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum while partly allowing the the application under section 166 of the MV Act. 3. Facts of the case reflects that on the date of accident i.e. 03.03.2023 deceased -Jaleshwar Prajapati along-with his friends were returning from field, at about 10:00PM (night) when they reached near pandarapathara main road, the driver of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. C.G.-10/NV-9949 by rash and negligent driving dashed the deceased from behind, it resulted into severe injuries on the persons of the deceased Jaleshwar Prajapati and Rajkumar Yadav, resulting into death of Jaleshwar Prajapati. The respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company. 4. The deceased was aged about 27 years and was a mason earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Appellants/claimants are the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased Jaleshwar Prajapati. Thus, the above stated compensation was claimed. 5. The offences under sections 227, 337 and 304-A of the I.P.C. was registered in Crime case No. 193/2023 against the respondent No.1 / driver and after due investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 6. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing joint written statement denied the averments of the claim application. They have stated that the deceased was under influence of liquor is walking in the middle of the main road. The amount of compensation is claimed exaggerated. 7. The respondent No. 3 also filed its statement and denied the averments, and in usual course pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. No documents regarding the age -3- and income of the deceased have been filed. Thus, the application may be rejected. 8. On the basis of above broad pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed seven issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the above stated compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a mason working and was in the category of skilled labour. He used to work as a mason in the building constructions. Thus, finding of learned Tribunal with regard to his income to Rs.10,000/- per month is on the lower side. Apart from this, the compensation on all other head is also on lower side. 10.Learned counsels for respondent submits that the appellants/claimants could not brought on record any documents with regard to age, income and professions of the deceased, therefore just compensation has been awarded which does not require any interference. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record. 12.As per pleadings of the claim application the deceased was aged about 27 year. He is stated to be a mason. Of course no document is available on record to suggest his income and profession. This Court is conscious of the fact that the Claim application under MV Act is summary in nature. In absence of any documentary prove, the Court and Tribunal are required to assess the notional income of the deceased, looking to the fact, circumstances and evidence brought on record. Perusal of the record would indicates that young widow of 25 years, minor daughter of 3 years and aged parents of 66 and 61 years respectively dependent upon the income of the deceased. The accident had occurred on 03.03.2023. Naturally, if there are four dependents upon the income of the deceased, this Court can safely take -4- monthly income of the deceased to Rs.12,000/- per month. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Head Calculation 1. Income of the deceased @ 12,000/- per month Rs.1,44,000/- per annum (12,000/- X 12). 2. Future prospect 40% Rs.2,01,600/- (1,44,000 + 57600) 3. ¼th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.1,51,200/- 4. Multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs. 25,70,400/- (1,51,200 x 17) 5. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.33,000/- 6. Parental and filial consortium Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each to appellant nos. 2 to 4) 7. Loss of consortium to wife Rs.44,000/- Total compensation Rs. 27,67,400/- 13. Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.23,23,200/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.4,35,400/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of appeal i.e. 19/03/2025. The amount shall be deposited by the respondent No.3 / Insurance Company within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. -5- 14. After deposit being made, Rs. 50,000/- (each) shall be disbursed to appellant Nos. 3 & 4, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 2 till she attained the age of majority. Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1 - Smt. Ahilya Bai Prajapati as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 2 years. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.1 by bank transaction / account payee cheque. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent. Sd/-Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge -/ Ashish