1 MAC No.1463 of 2017 2025:CGHC:25984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1463 of 2017 1 - Vyas Narayan S/o Gendlal , A / O Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post Office Bathena , Thana Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2 - Godavri Bai W/o Vyas Narayan Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post Office Bathena , Thana Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Kailas Prasad S/o Ramadhar Sahu Parmanent Address R/o Kushiyari, Post Office Kudhari, Thana Bahri, District Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh , Current Address Hora Transport Company Private Ltd Through Officer In Charge Hora Trasport Company Private Ltd R/o And Post Office Mandir Hosoud , Thana Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh . Thana Gobra Navapara , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Non Applicant No. 1/ Driver Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04 - G - 8981 , Chhattisgarh 2 - Hora Transport Company Ltd. Through Officer In Charge , Hora Transport Company Private Ltd. R/o And Post Office Mandir Hasoud, Thana Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Non Applicant No. 2/ Owner Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04 - G - 8981, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 MAC No.1463 of 2017 3 - I C I C I Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Officer In Charge, I C I C I Lombard, Insurance Company Ltd. Lal Ganga Shopping Complex G. E. Road Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Non Applicant No. 3 / Insurer Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04 - G - 8981, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dharmendra Verma S/o Shatrughan Verma Gaji Nagar Birgaon Thana Urla District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Non Applicant No. 4 / Owner Of Motorcycle C. D. Don No. C. G. 04 - Am - 4474 , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellants/claimants : Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Gopal Swaroop Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Tessy Abraham, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/06/2025 1. This is an appeal by the claimants against the award dated 29.4.2017 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.29 of 2011, in which compensation of Rs.2,44,500/- has been granted in favour of the claimants fastening liability upon the owner of the offending truck, i.e., respondent No.2 herein to pay the compensation. 2. Case, in short, is that on 21.5.2010 at about 7:05 p.m., the son of the claimants was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 3 MAC No.1463 of 2017 04 CM 4474. The motorcycle was being ridden by the son of the claimants, namely, Purendra alias Chhotu and one Nootan Verma was pillion rider on the motorcycle. They were on the way from Village Ghoudi to Mandir Hasoud. A truck bearing registration No.CG 04 G 8981 was parked on the mid of the road and no parking light was shown in the parked truck. Due to negligence of the driver of the offending truck, the motorcycle dashed with the offending truck, as a result of which, the son of the claimants succumbed to the injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned Award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case. He goes on to submit that the learned Tribunal has failed to award just, fair, and adequate compensation under various heads and has instead granted a grossly inadequate amount, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellants. The Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at a mere Rs. 15,000/- per annum, despite sufficient material on record indicating that the deceased was working as a driver, and it could reasonably have been presumed that he earned at least Rs. 40,000/- per annum. He further submits that the Tribunal also failed to consider future prospects, though the deceased was only 20 years old at the time of death, and a 100% increase in 4 MAC No.1463 of 2017 income over time was a reasonable expectation. The multiplier applied is also liable to be reconsidered in view of the deceased’s young age and long potential earning span. Additionally, the compensation awarded under conventional heads is disproportionately low, only Rs. 2,500/- has been granted for loss of estate, whereas at least Rs. 1,00,000/- ought to have been awarded; no compensation was granted under the head of loss of love and affection, despite the untimely death of a 20-year-old son leaving behind parents aged only 40 and 29 years, who are entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- each under this head; and a meager Rs. 2,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses, which should have been fixed at Rs. 25,000/-. In light of the above, the impugned Award is liable to be modified suitably by enhancing the compensation to ensure justice is done to the appellants, therefore, he goes on to submit that this appeal deserves to be modified by way of enhancement in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/owner of the offending truck submits that the Respondent No.2 has insured the vehicle with the Respondent-insurance company and stated that If someone has recovery is made against the Respondent No.2 then the responsibility will be upon the insurance company and it is also stated that Respondent No.2 had seen and tested the 5 MAC No.1463 of 2017 driving license of Driver issued by the RTO. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 - insurance company opposed the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 6. Pursuant to the amendment incorporated in Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the minimum amount of compensation payable to claimants has been prescribed as Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). In the instant case, the claimants have already been granted a sum of Rs.2,44,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty-Four Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation. Therefore, in order to comply with the statutory mandate and ensure full and just compensation, the differential amount of Rs.2,55,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty-Five Thousand Five Hundred only), being the balance between the minimum prescribed amount and the amount already paid, shall be paid to the claimants in addition to the said amount already disbursed. Consequently, an additional amount of Rs. 2,55,500 6 MAC No.1463 of 2017 (Rs.5,00,000/- - Rs.2,44,500/-) shall be paid to the claimants to meet the statutory minimum compensation requirement. 7. The other conditions of the award passed by the Clams Tribunal would be as it is. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh/Saxena