1 2025:CGHC:43396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 436 of 2021 1 - Smt. Parwati, W/o Late Ramesh Banjare, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village-Kishungarh, Post- Kishungarh, Tahsil-Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Mukesh Kumar Banjare, S/o Late Ramesh Banjare, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Village-Kishungarh, Post- Kishungarh, Tahsil-Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Kavita Banjare, D/o Late Ramesh Banjare Aged About 15 Years, Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Banjare, There Is Legal Guardian Not Mentioned In Pmpugned Judgment Before The Learned Claims Tribunal. R/o Village-Kishungarh, Post- Kishungarh, Tahsil-Pandariya, District-Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Priti Banjare, D/o Late Ramesh Banjare, Aged About 12 Years, Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Banjare, R/o Village- Kishungarh, Post- Kishungarh, Tahsil-Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 5 - Samir Banjare S/o Late Ramesh Banjare, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Banjare, R/o Village- Kishungarh, Post- Kishungarh, Tahsil-Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ishwar Banjare S/o Late Ridhram Banjare Aged About 60 Years R/o Village-Kishungarh, Post- Kishungarh, Tahsil-Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Illabai, W/o Ishwar Banjare, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village- Kishungarh, Post- Kishungarh, Tahsil-Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 versus 1 - Virendra Chaturvedi S/o Bhauram Chaturvedi, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Majgaon, Thana-City Kotwali- Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Cum Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle C.G. No. 28/h/8559), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tara A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Office No. 403, 4 Th Mala (Floor) D.B. City Corporate Park Plot No.1, Block No. 09 Rajbandha Garden Raipur, Pin Code No. 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Devendra Kumar Dhritlahare S/o Bhanuram Dhritlahare, Aged About 30 Years (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Auto No. C.G.09/j.F./6785), R/o Village- Sagonadih, Post- Kishungarh, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ( Driver of The Offending Vehcile Auto C.G. No. 09/j.F./6785), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Dalgajan Singh Aadile S/o Dashrath Aadile Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Sagonadih Ward No.2 Chandani Chowk Sagonadih, Post- Kushungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Auto C.G. No. 09/J.F./6785), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Future General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- 2nd Floor Ntra 5-3 Chhattisgarh Plaza Agrasen Chowk Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Auto C.G. No. 09/J.F./6785), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anand Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 & 4 : Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5. : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 26.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 23.03.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) in Claim 3 Case No.16/2019. 2. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 12,79,600/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of the deceased/Ramesh Banjare in an accident that took place on 21.09.2018, when he was traveling in the offending vehicle auto and he was going to Kishungarh from Pandariya, when he reached near Lormi, drivers of the offending vehicle auto and motorcycle by rash and negligent driving dashed the head on collision, subsequently the deceased Ramesh Banjare sustained grievous injuries on his body and died on the way while being taken to Bilaspur for treatment. The accident was reported to the Police Station- Mungeli against respondent No.1/driver for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 3. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased Ramesh Banjare was 39 years of age, working as Mason and earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. The claimants were totally dependent upon the earning of the deceased as he was the sole bread winner of the family as such, they claimed a total sum of Rs.56,89,800/- with interest as compensation under various heads. 4. 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 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount as compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as notional income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m, whereas there was evidence and also pleading to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month ought to have been assessed by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel also submits that 4 the learned Tribunal has awarded less compensation under the other heads. Thus, the appeal may be allowed enhancing the compensation suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents supporting the award impugned submits that the learned Tribunal minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper according to the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the evidence available on record; number of dependents; age of the deceased; date of accident; nature of job & minimum wages prevailing at that time this Court is of the view that Rs. 8,000/- can be safely taken as income of the deceased. 9. In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S. No. Particular Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 01. Monthly Income of the deceased 8,000/- 02. Future Prospects @ 40% 3,200/- 03. Total Income 11,200/- 04. Total Yearly 11,200X12= 1,34,400/- 5 Income 05. Personal expenditure (1/5) 1,34,400/5= 26,880/- 06. Net Income 1,34,400-26,880= 1,07,520/- 07. Multiplier of 15 applied to assess total loss of dependency 1,07,520X15= 16,12,800/- 08. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 09. Loss of estate 15,000/- 10. Loss of Consortium to appellant No. 1. 40,000/- 11. Loss of filial and parental consortium to appellant Nos. 1 to 6.= 40,000/- each 2,40,000/- Total compensation 19,22,800/- 10. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimants/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 19,22,800/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs.12,79,600/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 6,43,200/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of appeal dated 23.03.2021 till its realization to be deposited by respondents No. 2 and 5/Insurance Companies within a period of 60 days. On deposit being made, Rs. 50,000/- each be invested as fixed deposit in the name of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 in a nationalized bank for two years and Rs. 50,000/- be invested as fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 5 in a nationalized bank which would be renewable and would be payable on attaining the age of majority. Rs. 75,000/- each be paid to appellant 6 Nos. 6 & 7. Rs. 1,50,000/- be invested as fixed deposit in the name of appellant No.1 in a nationalized bank for two years. Remaining enhancement amount shall be disbursed to appellant No.1 through the bank transaction/account payee cheque. However, in para 29 (2) condition of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned award to the extent as indicated herein above Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge AMIT PATEL