1 2025:CGHC:16562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 06.02.2025 Judgment delivered on: 08.04.2025 MAC No. 1584 of 2017 1 - Smt. Prabha Devi Wd/o Sunil Roy, Aged About 30 Years 2 - Ku. Soni, D/o Late Sunil Roy, Aged About 12 Years 3 - Ku. Reena, D/o Late Sunil Roy, Aged About 10 Years 4 - Ku. Kanchan Kumari, S/o Late Sunil Roy, Aged About 5 Years 5 - Ku. Komal Kumari, S/o Late Sunil Roy, Aged About 2 Years 6 - Jawahar Roy, S/o Late Jagan Nath Roy, Aged About 73 Years 7 - Phuljharia Devi, W/o Jawahar Roy, Aged About 58 Years (Minor Nos. 2 to 5 are being represented by their next Friend And Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Prabha Devi) All are R/o House No. 18, Sai Vihar Siltara, Post Office Siltara, Police Station Dharshiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/claimants versus 1 - Kamal Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Thakur Sharma, C/o Upendra Singh, S/o Late M. S. Senger, R/o Housing Board Colony, H. N. 578, Block No. 25, Kachna Road, Khamhardeh, Police Station Pandri, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - M/s Nagesh Traders, Prop. Upendra Singh, S/o Late M. S. Sagar, R/o Housing Board Colony, H. N. 578, Block No. 25, Kachna Road, Khamhardeh, Police Station Pandri, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, G. E. Road, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : None For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 17.10.2017 passed by learned III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 37/2015 awarding a compensation of Rs.19,47,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, fastening liability on the non-applicant No.3/insurance company jointly and severally along with non-applicant No.1/driver and non-applicant No.2/owner. 2. As per claim petition filed under Sections 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on 19.10.2014 at about 2:45 P.M. a vehicle bearing Registration No. C.G. -04/ DA-7889 driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, hit the motor-cycle bearing Registration No. C.G. 04/ KS-0492 of the deceased- Sunil Roy. As a result of which, motor-cycle rider Sunil Roy succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained in the accident. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. Hence, the applicants/claimants prayed that the respondents No. 1 and 2 being the driver and owner & respondent No. 3 being the insurer were jointly and severely liable to pay compensation. 3 3. In the claim petition filed by the applicants/appellants, it is averred that Sh. Sunil Roy (deceased) was 35 years of age. He was possessed a sound health and physique at the time of accident. He used to work as a Labour Contractor and as such used to earn Rs. 2,50,000/- per annum by which the whole family was being maintained properly. The applicants/appellants suffered the agony of untimely death of Sh. Sunil Roy and faced mentally and economically sufferings. The applicants have sought the compensation of Rs. 68,25,000/- including all amounts claimed under various heads. 4. In their written statement, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have specifically denied the fact that the accident was ever taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. It has been admitted that the respondents No. 1 & 2 are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle & respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the said vehicle, however, it has been denied that the accident occurred while driving of that vehicle. The age and income of the deceased has specifically denied. Material facts in the claim petition have been specifically denied in the written statement. 5. In its written statement, the respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company denied the fact that the accident was ever taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 and pleaded that on 19.10.2014, the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 DA 7889 was driving the vehicle in a slow speed on his side then a motor-cycle bearing Registration No. C.G. 04. K.S. 0492 driven by its rider rashly and negligently hit the vehicle and as a result of which, the accident occurred. The said accident occurred due to the negligence 4 on part of the rider of motor-cycle No. C.G. 04. K.S. 0492. The plea regarding age and the income of the deceased was specifically denied. The Insurance Company has denied the material facts averred in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition against respondent No 3. 6. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the claimants for enhancement. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned award is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case and deserves to be enhanced by this Court. The learned Tribunal erred in appreciating & ascertaining the correct monthly income and future prospects of the deceased which has caused great injustice to the claimants. The learned Tribunal failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads such as loss of estate, consortium, love and affection of child and parent etc. The learned Tribunal erred in applying the correct multiplier. The learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/5th amount of income as self expenditure of the deceased while it should have been 1/6th, when the number of dependents are 7. Therefore, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal needs to be suitably enhanced. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, Malarvizhi and others vs. United India 5 Insurance Company Limited and another; (2020) 4 SCC 228 and Anjali and others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly awarded compensation which needs no interference by this Court. 9. No one appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 despite service of notice. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11.The Tribunal found that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, accident occurred on 19.10.2014 and deceased- Sunil Roy succumbed to injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Learned Tribunal also found that the insurance company has failed to prove any breach of terms of insurance policy and also that the claimants are dependents on deceased- Sunil Roy and held that the claimants are entitled to get compensation. The said finding was not challenged by the respondents/non-applicants. Looking to the documents filed by the appellants/applicants, this Court also found that the learned Tribunal rightly decided the issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the applicants. 12.Applicants/claimants filed the instant appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal did not consider the income tax return of the deceased properly and awarded meager amount as compensation. The learned Tribunal considered the income tax return in para 25 of the impugned award and found that except PAN card [Ex.P/13 (c)] and Income tax 6 return for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14, no documentary proof was filed by the claimants and also claimants did not examine any witness from Income Tax Department or file attested copies of income tax returns. 13.Smt. Prabha Devi Rai (A.W.-1) exhibited the certified copy of the criminal case from Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/12 and also filed copy of PAN card of her husband (deceased) vide Ex.P/13(c) however, she did not file attested copy of Income Tax Return and only photocopy of the same was filed. The learned Tribunal rightly found that these documents were not duly proved by the claimants and even attested copy of Income Tax Return was not filed by the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly calculated the notional income as Rs. 7,000/- p.m. Hence, this Court also does not find any illegality or irregularity in this finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. 14.Considering the age of the deceased i.e. 35 years, the number of dependents i.e. 7, the deduction made by the Tribunal towards personal and living expenses and application of multiplier of 16 is quite in accordance with law and needs no interference. However, the amount awarded under the conventional heads being on the lower side needs to be enhanced. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as under:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of deceased with future prospect @ 10,500/- per month. Rs. 1,26,000/- per annum 02. 1/5th deduction towards personal and living expenses of Rs. 1,00800/- 7 the deceased (Rs. 1,26,000/- - 25200) 03. Multiplier of 16 to be applied Rs. 16,12,800/- 04. Towards loss of spousal consortium to claimant No. 1 Towards loss of parental consortium to claimants No. 2 to 5 each @ 40,000/- Towards loss of filial consortium to claimants No. 6 & 7 each @ 40,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/- Rs.80,000/- 05. Towards funeral expenses Rs. 40,000/- 06. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 20,07,800/- 15. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.19,47,800/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV