1 2025:CGHC:38136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 663 of 2022 1 - Mahendar Kumar Yadav S/o. Late Shri Ram Yadav, Aged About 23 Years R/o Yadavapara, Village Khajuri, P.S. And Tahsil Darima, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Shailawati, Wd/o Late Shri Ram Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Yadavapara, Village Khajuri, P.S. And Tahsil Darima, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Savitri Yadav, D/o. Late Shri Ram Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Yadavapara, Village Kulhadi, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kumari Seema Yadav D/o. Late Shri Ram Yadav, Aged About 20 Years R/o Yadavapara, Village Khajuri, P.S. And Tahsil Darima, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. … Appellants versus 1 - Heeralal S/o. Bharat Ram, Aged About 26 Years R/o, Village Kulhadi, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Motor Cycle No. Cg 15 DN 5732) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.08.04 11:13:15 +0530 2 2 - Bharat Singh Sadilya, S/o. Patel Singh Sadilya, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Karju, P.S. Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Moter Cycle No. CG 15 DN 5732) 3 - Tata A.I.G. Insurance Company, Registered Address Main Branch Penimsula Business Park, Tower A-15, Floor G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 (Maharashtra) (Insurer Of Motor Cycle No.CG 15 DN 5732) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 01.08 .2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 22/11/2021 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ambikapur in Claim Case No. 49/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,76,925/- as compensation for the death of Sriram Yadav, aged about 54 years, who worked as a Labourer. 3 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 26/08/2020 at about 11 AM, deceased Sriram Yadav was going on his cycle to sell milk when respondent No. 2 herein, who was driving the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 15 DN 5732 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with him and caused the accident due to which he suffered grievous injuries and was taken to the Hospital, but ultimately died. 3. Appellants, who are wife and three children of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 29,94,013/- pleading therein that at the time of the incident, deceased was aged about 50 years and was an able-bodied person and used to work as a Farmer and also sold milk to make an earning and he was the sole bread-earner in the family and the appellants were solely dependent upon him. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 opposed the claim application and submitted that respondent No. 2 was driving the motorcycle carefully on the left side of the road and deceased himself was driving his cycle in rash and negligent manner and collided with him on account of which he suffered injuries. They have further stated that deceased had not suffered serious injuries in the accident and had he been taken to the Hospital for treatment in 4 time, he would have been alive. They have further stated that respondent No. 1 had valid driving license on the date of the accident and the offending motorcycle was duly insured with respondent No. 3 Insurance Company, therefore, they are liable for payment of compensation, if any. 5. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company also opposed the claim application and submitted that on the date of accident, respondent No. 2 did not have valid driving license and the motorcycle was being plied in breach of the terms and conditions of Insurance policy, therefore, they are not liable for payment of compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Sriram Yadav died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid motorcycle which was driven by respondent No. 2. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs. 8,76,925/- as total compensation with interest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal 5 erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs. 7,000/- per month which should be Rs. 9,380/- per month, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Sriram Yadav to be Rs. 7,000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 9,380/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and Rs. 1,12,560/- per annum as he worked as a Labourer and sold milk to make an earning. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters 6 of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 7,000/- x 12 = Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 9,380 x 12 = Rs. 1,12,560/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 10% i.e. Rs. 8,400 = Rs. 92,400/- (+) 10% i.e. Rs. 11,256 = Rs. 1,23,816/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 23,100/- = Rs. 69,300/- (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 30,954/- = Rs. 92,862/- 4. Multiplier (x) 11 = Rs. 7,62,300/- (x) 11 = Rs. 10,21,482/- 5. Medical Bills Rs. 34,625/- Rs. 34,625/- 6. Transportation Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 9. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000 x 4 = Rs. 1,60,000/- Total Rs. 8,76,925/- Rs. 12,56,107/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 8,76,925/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 12,56,107/-. Hence, after 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 deducting the amount of Rs. 8,76,925/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,79,182/-. The Respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 16/02/2021 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet