-1- 2025:CGHC:41107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1322 of 2019 1 - Smt. Devkunwar W/o Late Brijmohan Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years 2 - Ramprakash Sahu S/o Late Brijmohan Ram Sahu Aged About 28 Years 3 - Shriram Sahu S/o Late Brijmohan Ram Sahu Aged About 29 Years All R/o Village Dabripara, Police Station Patna, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Nayansai Baik S/o Chaituram Baik Aged About 35 Years Owner, R/o Village Jaampara, Police Station And Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Raiyajuddin S/o Shahabuddin Aged About 28 Years Driver, R/o Village Latma, Police Station And Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Ifco Sadan C-1, Saket New Delhi, Branch Office Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisarh. ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. V.K. Sahu, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shantanu Parmanand, Advocate Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.16 10:55:31 +0530 -2- For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 14/08/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal vide its award dated 22nd April 2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.46 of 2018 by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District- Korea (CG), on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of ½ instead of 1/3. 2. Motor accidental death of late Brijmohan Ram Sahu, involvement of offending vehicle driven by non-applicant No.1, owned by non- applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3 is not in dispute. 3. In the aforementioned facts of the case, this Court is not dealing with the facts as pleaded in claim application, reply and adverted by learned Claims Tribunal with regard to facts of accident and is only considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that claimants No. 1 to 3 are widow and two sons. Claims Tribunal while applying deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased has only considered the age of claimants No. 2 & 3 to be 28 years and 29 years -3- on the date of accident, they being majors and therefore came to conclusion that they were not dependent upon income of deceased. No other reason or the ground is assigned by Claims Tribunal. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellants that claimants No. 2 & 3 though are major sons but they are not having sufficient income and were dependent upon income of their deceased father. Hence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have applied deduction of 1/3 instead of 1/2. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that learned Claims Tribunal justified in taking note of the fact that claimants No. 2 & 3 are major sons and they cannot be treated to be dependent . Deduction of ½ applied in the facts of case, cannot be said to be erroneous. Compensation awarded to claimants by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 7. Application of multiplier and deduction has been well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. In above referred decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where number of dependents are 2 to 3 and deceased was married, deduction of 1/3 is to be applied towards personal and living expenses and when deceased was un-married, deduction of ½ is to be applied. 8. In the case at hand, deceased was married and claimant No.1 is widow -4- of deceased, therefore, in facts of case, appropriate deduction would be 1/3. It is ordered accordingly. 9. As in this appeal, the only ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants for seeking enhancement of compensation is with regard to application of deduction of ½ instead of 1/3, I am only considering the submission of learned counsel for the appellants as raised in this case during arguments. 10. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income/Dependency (A) Annual Income from salary – Rs.6,91,896/- Addition towards future prospects @ 15% ( 6,91,896 x 15% =1,03,784) 6,91,896 + 1,03,784 = 7,95,680 (B) Annual Income from agriculture - Rs.1,92,676/- Addition towards future prospects @ 10% (1,92,676 x 10% =19,268) 1,92,676 + 19,268 = 2,11,944 (C) Total Income- Rs.10,07,624/- (Salary Income of Rs.7,95,680/- + Agriculture income of Rs. 2,11,944) (D) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (10,07,624 x 1/3 =335875) 10,07,624 - 335875 = 6,71,749/- (E) Multiplier of 9 6,71,749 x 9 = 60,45,741 : Rs. 60,45,741 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 -5- 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of Consortium : (+) Rs. 40,000 Total compensation : Rs. 61,15,741 11. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 61,15,741/- instead of Rs.46,04,308/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 12. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 13. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen