1 2025:CGHC:18614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1127 of 2019 Kripanath Singh S/o Pran Say Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Patrapali Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Owner versus 1 - Jamuna Singh S/o Lohru Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Patrapali, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 2 - Kailaso W/o Jamuna Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Patrapali, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents/Claimants For Appellant/Owner : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (24.04.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 06.04.2019 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.04.29 14:26:01 +0530 2 Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in MAC Case No. 16/2018 awarding compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, is that on 02.12.2016, Shivpratap Singh (now deceased) was going to weekly market village Surta by his motorcycle, at that time driver/Appellant drove the motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-15-CJ-0512 (offending vehicle) rashly and negligently and collided with Shivpratap due to which Shivpratap sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. The report of the accident was lodged based on which offence was registered. It is stated that on the date of the accident, age of the deceased was 18 years, he was unmarried and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from business and agriculture. Due to said accident, there is an irreparable loss to the respondents/claimants. Therefore, the claimants had preferred an application under Section 166 of the MV Act before the Tribunal. 3. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record has awarded total compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- in favour of the claimant with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon Driver cum Owner/Appellant. Hence, this appeal has been filed by Driver cum Owner/Appellant for reduction of the compensation. 3 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant challenged quantum part and submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side. He further submits that looking the numbers of claimants, the deduction towards dependency would be 1/2 instead of 1/3. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal of the Driver cum Owner/Appellant may be allowed and amount of compensation may be reduced suitably. 5. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. In a motor accident claim case, what important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a Bonanza. 8. Now, this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of facts and 4 evidence brought on record, assessed monthly income of the deceased to Rs.4,500/-, given 40% future prospects, deducted 1/3 income towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs. 9,07,200/-. Furthermore, Rs.30,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal in other heads. Thus, total Rs.9,37,200/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants/Respondents with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. 10. From the evidence, it is clear that there are only two claimants mother and father of the deceased. Therefore, the deduction would be 1/2 instead of 1/3 as wrongly held by the Tribunal. However, in the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500 per month. The accident occurred on 02.12.2016. As per the notification by Labour Department, the minimum wages of even an unskilled labour at that point of time was Rs.6206 per month i.e. 74,472/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 29,788/-, the the amount comes to Rs 1,04,260/-. There are 2 legal representatives of the deceased. So deduction would be 1/2 of the income and after deduction, the amount comes to Rs.52,130. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance 5 Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be 18 and after applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.9,38,340/-. In addition, as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, The claimants would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards love & affection and spousal consortium for wife, totalling Rs.80,000. They are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. As such, on being calculated as a whole, the compensation amount would be more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In such a situation, the argument of the Insurance Company that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation in favour of the claimants, is not acceptable. 12. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham