1 2025:CGHC:21348 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1209 of 2018 1 - Yashwant Ram Sahu S/o Late Faguwaram Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Madeli, Post- Kachna, Tahsil- Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Susheela Bai W/o Shri Yashwant Ram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Madeli, Post- Kachna, Tahsil- Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.....(Claimants), ...Appellants versus 1 - Ravi Tarak ( Minor ) S/o Shri Hulas Tarak R/o Utba, Police Station And Tahsil Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh......(Driver of Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. CG 04 KT 3321), through the Natural Guardian Shri Hulas Tarak., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mithlesh Tarak S/o Shri Siyaram Tarak R/o Utba, Police Station And Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle No. Cg 04 Kt 3321), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 – ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Limited House 414, Veer Sawarkar Marg, Siddhi Vinayak Mandir, Parabhadevi, Mumbai, A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 Maharashtra.......(Insurance Company Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle No. Cg 04 Kt 3321)........(Non- )applicants, District : Mumbai, Maharashtra ... Respondent(s) For the appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2 : None For Respondent no.3. : Mr. Saurabh Patel, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 08/05/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 16th May, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No.731 of 2014. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the claimants are the parents of deceased Humendra @ Heman Kumar Sahu. On 10.01.2014, deceased was going to the village Madeli on his motorcycle. On the way at about 6 – 6.30 p.m, Respondent no1 who was driving the offending motorcycle No.C.G.04-KT/3321 in rash and negligent manner hit the deceased, as a result of which, deceased Humendra sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The said vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3/Insurance company. The claimants 3 being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application seeking a total compensation of Rs. 68,20,000/- on various heads. 3. The learned claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence and documents placed on record, took the monthly income of deceased to Rs. 9840/- i.e., 1,18,080/- per annum; added 50% future prospectus to the income, deducted one-half towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 5 and thus assessed the total tependency Rs.4,42,800/-. In addition, Rs.30,000/- has been awarded on other heads. Thus the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,72,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the primary responsibility on the insurer/respondent no.3. 4. Though the Tribunal has found proved that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was driven by respondent no.1 (minor) in breach of terms of the insurance policy, yet it held that the claimants are legal representatives of the deceased who are third parties, to whom, the , driver and owner are jointly and severally responsible to pay compensation. However, it directed that the Insurance Company should first pay the compensation due to the claimants , after which, it can recover the same from the owner/respondent no.2. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that looking to the evidence and facts pleaded in claim petition and as per the settled principle, the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of deceased and not the age of his parents and considering the age of deceased, the Tribunal should have applied multiplier 15 instead of 4 multiplier 5 which has wrongly been applied on the basis of age of parents. He, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs enhancement. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 contends that sufficient compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, appeal is liable be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As regards the income of deceased, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was a government teacher and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 9,840/- and after getting prospective promotion, his salary would have become Rs.20,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal considering the documents (Accountal/Salary Slips) Ex.P-17 and P-18 has rightly taken the monthly income as Rs.9,840/- i.e., annual income Rs.1,18,080/- which is found correct. As regards future prospects, the Tribunal has rightly added 50% future prospects to the income of deceased. Thus the total annual income comes to Rs.1,77,120/- (1,18,080 plus 59,040). 10. The deceased was an unmarried man and the claimants are parents of the deceased so the deduction towards personal expenses would be one-half, therefore, after deducting one half, the tribunal has rightly calculated the annual dependency as Rs. 88,560/- (1,77,120/- 5 minus 88,560). 11. It was argued by the claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 37 years, therefore, the proper multiplier would be 15. However, considering the age of deceased’s parents (claimants), the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier 5 which cannot be sustained in view of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 further followed by National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. So considering the fact that the deceased was within the age group of 36-40 years, multiplier 15 is adopted. Thus the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,28,400/- (88,560 x 15) Under the other heads, the Tribunal has further granted Rs. 15000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate which are found sufficient. However, as regards the loss of love and affection,, the Tribunal has not granted any sum on this head. There are two claimants in this case. As per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, AIR Online 2018 SC, each claimant is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- on this head. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 14,38,400/-. Thus this Court on reappraisal of the workout made by the Tribunal is computing the total award as follows : 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 13,28,400/- 2. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 3. Love and affection (Rs.40000 x 2) Rs. 80,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 14,38,400/-. 6 12. Thus the total compensation is recalculated to Rs. 14,38,400/- from which after deduction of Rs. 4,72,800/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 9,65,600/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The Tribunal has already passed the pay and recovery order. The same is affirmed. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 14. The registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area where the claimants reside. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao