1 2025:CGHC:13261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1278 of 2018 1 - Smt. Budhiyarin Bai, W/o Late Ashok Kumar Sahu, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 54, Potiyakala Durg Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Monu Sahu, S/o Late Ashok Kumar Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 54, Potiyakala Durg Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Khorbahara Sahu, S/o Late Derha Ram Sahu, Aged About 85 Years, R/o Ward No. 54, Potiyakala Durg Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Dulshiya (Died), deleted as Per Honble Court’s Order Dated 16-07-2024. ... Appellants versus 1 - Bhushan Kumar Thakur, S/o Shyam Lal Thakur Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 55 , Bajrang Chowk Police Station Pulgaon Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. C G-07-AT–1144). 2 - Saket Kumar Jain, S/o Moti Lal Jain, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Qtr. No. 16/B, Sector - 02, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. CG- 07-AT-1144). 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through - Branch Manager, Office At Office No. 403, Near Gurudwara, Station Road Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. CG-07-AT-1144). ... Respondent 2 For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Advocate (Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey) Judgment on Board 20.03.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 28.02.2018 passed by 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the “Tribunal”), Durg (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No.270/2016 awarding a compensation of Rs.7,45,930/- in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of Devanand @ Deva Sahu (since deceased). 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 25.10.2015 at around 11.00 PM, deceased Dewangan @ Deva Sahu, who is son of appellant No.1, younger brother of appellant No.2 and grand son of appellant No.3, was returning to his house on his motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No. CG-07-AD-9302 after watching Dussehra. When he reached near village Ganiyari turn, one vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. CG-07-AT-1144 driven by respondent No.1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor of deceased as a result of which, deceased Devanand @ Deva Sahu 3 came under the offending vehicle and sustained grievous injuries over his head, right shoulder, hand, right thigh. Thereafter, deceased Devanand @ Deva Sahu was taken to District Hospital, Durg from where looking to gravity of his injuries he was refered to Shri Narayan Hospital, Raipur, where he succumbed to the injuries on 26.10.2015. A claim case was filed by the appellants/claimants, who happen to be the legal heir of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs.62,96,000/- inter alia pleading that the deceased at the relevant time was aged about 26 years, he was skilled driver and earning Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs.100/- allowance per day. 3. Pleading of the claimant have, however, been denied by the respondent/insurance company. 4. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal recorded its finding that since the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company, held it accountable to pay compensation first, and awarded the compensation of Rs.7,45,930/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the appellant/claimants taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and Rs.54,000/- per annum, applying the multiplier of 17 and deducting 50% towards expenses. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in awarding less compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as notional income of Rs.4,500/-, whereas there was evidence and also pleading to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month along with Rs.100/- as daily allowance, thus total Rs.11,000/- as monthly income ought to have been assessed by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded less compensation under the other head. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.15,000/- for funeral and Rs.1 Lakh each to the claimant under the head love and affection. Thus, the appeal may be allowed enhancing the compensation suitably. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/insurance company supporting the award impugned submits that the learned Tribunal minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper according to the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents 5 on record. 8. The learned Tribunal recorded its finding that the claimants have not adduced any documentary evidence to establish the fact that the deceased was working as driver and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by driving vehicle and getting Rs.100/- per day as allowance and the learned Tribunal taking reliance of the decision dated 28.07.2015 passed by this Court in M.A.© 65/2013 [Smt. Usha Devi & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Mohammad & Ors.], assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/- and Rs.54,000/- per annum, taking future prospect, deduction towards personal expenses, considering loss of dependency and awarding sum under the head funeral and loss of estate, awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.7,45,930/-, but it has committed error in not awarding any sum under the head love and affection and filial consortium in view of decision of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 9. 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 the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the 6 compensation of Rs.7,45,930/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 11. From the pleadings of the respective parties and the overall evidence on record it is clear that the accident occurred on 25.10.2015 with the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3 and was being driven by respondent No.1. Evidence further goes to show that offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner. 12. It is apparent from the record that the incident took place on 25.10.2015 and at the relevant time the notional income of an unskilled labour was Rs.6302/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken to be Rs.6,302/- which makes the annual income as Rs.75,624/-. The deceased was unmarried and 26 years of old at the time of accident. Thus, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects at 40% of the actual income of the deceased is required to be taken, thus, the amount comes to Rs.30,250,/- (40% of 75,624/-). Further, after deducting 50% towards the standard deduction on the deceased himself, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.52,937- [Rs.52,937/- 50% of (75,624/- + 30,250/- = 7 1,05,874/-)] which by applying the multiplier of 17 rises to Rs.8,99,929/- as the total loss of dependency which the deceased must have spent on the dependents. The Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence has rightly awarded Rs.32,820/-under the head medical expenses and Rs.40,510/- for repairing of accidental vehicle. The learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- toward funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of estate, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130, is just and proper. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head ‘loss of love and affection & loss of consortium’. The Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (Supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. Thus, keeping in view all these things, above discussion and in view of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and requires reconsideration. The claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court 8 Income 54,000/- (Rs.4,500/- per month x 12) Rs.75,624/- (Rs.6302/- per month x 12) Future Prospect 40% Rs.21,600/- (40% of 54,000) Rs.30,250/- (40% of 75,624/- Deduction towards living and personal expenses Rs. 37,800 (50% of 54,000/- + 21,600/- = 75,600/-) Rs. 52,937/- (50% of 75,624 + 30,250/- = Rs.1,05,874/-) Total Loss of Dependency Rs.37,800/- Rs.52,937/- Multiplier applied 17 17 Loss of Future Income Rs.6,42,600 (Rs.37,800 x 17) Rs.8,99,929/- (Rs.52,937 x 17) Medical Expenses Rs.32,820/- -- Towards Love and Affection Nil Filial parental consortium for claimant No.1 – 40,000/- Toward love and affection to claimant No.2 - Rs.40,000/- Filial consortium to claimant No.3 – Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.1,20,000/- For Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Nil Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Nil Repairing of accidental vehicle Rs.40,510/- Nil Total Compensation awarded Rs. 7,45,930/- Rs.10,19,929/- 13. Thus, the total compensation including the amount awarded on conventional heads comes to Rs.10,19,929/- i.e. 9 (8,99,929 + 1,20,000/-) for which the claimants are entitled to receive as compensation, is just and proper, for the death of deceased Devanand @ Deva Sahu. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.7,45,930/-, after deducting the same the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.2,73,999/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. 14. Appeal is thus allowed in part with the modification in the award impugned as indicated above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE