1 2025:CGHC:44787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1189 of 2019 1 - Smt. Kudiyam Sonmati W/o Kudiyam Sonuram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Papanpal Police Station Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manisha D/o Kudiyam Sonuram Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Papanpal Police Station Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kudiyam Ajay S/o Kuduyam Sonuram Aged About 8 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Kudiyam Sonmati (Mother) R/o Village Papanpal Police Station Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kudiyam Priyanka D/o Kudiyam Sonuram Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Kudiyam Sonmati (Mother) R/o Village Papanpal Police Station Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Avinash Thakur S/o Komal Singh Thakur Aged About 20 Years R/o Kathmandu Camp Bacheli, Police Station Bacheli, Tahsil And District Bijapur, Chhattisgrh (Driver Of The Vehicle), 2 - D. Usanna S/o Late D. Lingiaya R/o Dipopara Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle), 2 3 - The Bajaj Allince Ceneral Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Vidhan Sabha Marg Pandri Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Vikas Patel, Advocate on behalf of Shri P.K.Tulsyan, Advocates For Respondents 1 and 2 : Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shristi Upadhyaya, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 02/09/2025 This appeal under Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed challenging the award dated 17/07/2017 passed in Claim Case No.186/2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, District–South Bastar, Dantewada (CG) (for short ‘Tribunal’). By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.2165000/-, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.11,77,096/- in favour of the appellants /claimants. 2. The claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act has been filed on account of death of Kudiyam Sonuram in an accident that occurred on 02/10/2012 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration No.CG18 D. 0981 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 32 years and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as a contractor. Therefore, the aforestated compensation was claimed. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed joint return and except admitted facts, denied the averments of the claim application. The insurance company took a plea that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the driver was not having valid and effective driving license. 4. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded the 3 abovestated compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was a contractor in the Gram Panchayat and used to earn Rs.10,000 to Rs.12,000/- per month. A certificate to that effect was also issued by the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the income of the deceased ought to have been considered to Rs.12,000/- and enhancement on all other heads may kindly be made. 6. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat only indicates that the deceased was working as a Contractor in the Gram Panchayat however, the issuing authority of the certificate has not been examined and it does not reflect that there was a regular income of Rs.12,000/-. It is merely an assumption made in that certificate which has rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Though a certificate Ex.P/11 has been filed by the appellants / claimants, which was purportedly issued by the members of the Gram Panchayat, however, none of the persons who put their thumb impressions have been examined and certificate only raise an assumption regarding the income to Rs.10000/- to 12,000/-, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was earning on the basis of such certificate. Taking into consideration the submission made, number of dependents, nature of job and in order to make the compensation just, this Court assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.6,000/- and taking guidance from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 propose to recompute the compensation in the following manner - 1. Monthly income Rs.6000/- 2. Future prospects 40% (6000 + Rs.8400/- 4 2400) 3. Yearly income (8400x12) Rs.100800/- 4. 1/4 deduction for personal expenses (100800/4) Rs.25200/- 5. Multiplier of 16 (75600 X 16) (100800-25200 =75600) Rs.1209600/- 6. Funeral expenses + Loss of estate+spousal consortium +Rs.70000/- 7. Filial Consortium +Rs.160000/- Total Compensation =Rs.1439600/- 9. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,77,096/- which is deducted from the total compensation now awarded and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.2,62,504/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 6% is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 24/06/2019 to be deposited by the insurance company within a period of 60 days. On deposit being made, learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement. 10. The appeal thus allowed in part. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.09.09 16:36:32 +0530