1 2025:CGHC:1025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1005 of 2015 1. Purushottam Lal Jolhe S/o Shri Sundar Sai Jolhe Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Hirri, Post Godam, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2. Ram Bai W/o Shri Purushottam Lal Jolhe Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Hirri, Post Godam, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1. Mohd. Zahir S/o Shri Paigamber Ali Aged About 32 Years Occupation Driver R/o Moni Road Kurliya, Aasansol, At Present Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Plot No. 68, Nagpur M.H. 2. Mayur Pawar S/o Yashwant Pawar Occupation Owner Of Vehicle R/o Chhindwada, Gandhi Ganj, Post Chhindwada, Distt. Chhindwada M.P. 3. Kumari Bharti Alias Priya D/o Late Gajendra Kumar, Aged About 17 Years Through Natural Guardian Her Badi Mammi- Khembai Jolhe W/o Shri Bhupendra Kumar Jolhe, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village-Hirri, Post-Godam, Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4. Kumari Khushbhu D/o Late Gajendra Kumar, Aged About 15 Years Through Natural Guardian Her Badi Mammi- Khembai Jolhe W/o Shri Bhupendra Kumar Jolhe, Aged About 43 Years, Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.01.10 16:29:37 +0530 2 R/o Village- Hirri, Post-Godam, P.S.-Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through ICICI Bank, Tower Bhandara Kurla, Complex, Mumbai (MH) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 07 / 0 1 / 202 5 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 24.11.2014 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), in Claim Case No.03/2009 awarding compensation of Rs.4,95,186/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of all the claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 06.11.2008 at about 7:00 p.m, respondent No.1 Mohd. Zahir while driving the offending truck bearing registration No. MP 28 B 2359 rashly and negligently dashed deceased Gajendra Kumar Jolhe near Jaiswal Dhaba, Sarangarh (Tengnapali), as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries. He was first taken to Sarangarh for primary treatment and on being referred, he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Raigarh for treatment where he died during treatment on 10.11.2008. The matter was reported to Police Station, Sarangarh, District Raigarh thereon a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent no.1. 3. It is claimed that at the time of incident the deceased was aged 3 about 32 years and was earning Rs.15,000 per month by working as an electrician. Due to the casual death of Gajendra Kumar Jolhe, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the wife, children & parents of the deceased. The claimants filed two claim applications. The parents of the deceased filed Claim Case No.03/2009 and the wife and two minor daughters filed Claim Case No.09/2009 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.40,41,750 and Rs.40,00,000 respectively. 4. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents brought on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000 per month i.e. Rs.36,000 per annum as no documentary evidence was brought on record regarding income of the deceased. Taking into account the number of claimants, 1/4th of the income was deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.27,000. Considering the age of the deceased to be 30 years at the time of incident, multiplier of 17 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.4,59,000. Apart from this, Rs.32,500/- has been given under other heads and Rs.3,686 for medical expenses. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,95,186/- in favour of the claimants in both the claim applications with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the parents of the deceased for enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects while computing compensation and the compensation awarded under other heads also needs to be enhanced suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance 4 Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellants and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. It is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000 per month by working as an electrician. But no documentary evidence has been brought on record regarding income of the deceased. Therefore, considering the nature of work and the period of incident, the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000 seems to be proper. However, the Tribunal has not considering future prospects while computing compensation. Considering the age of the deceased and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 40% of the income. After adding 40% of the income i.e. 1,200 towards future prospects, the amount comes to Rs.4200 per month i.e. Rs.50,400 per annum. 11. At the time of incident the deceased was aged about 30 years and there are total 5 claimants who are the wife, 2 daughters and parents of the deceased, so deduction towards personal expenses 5 would be 1/4th of the income as rightly held by the Tribunal. After deduction of personal expenses, the amount comes to Rs.37,800. In view of the 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 Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased to be 30 years at the time of incident, the multiplier would be 17 as rightly held by the Tribunal. Hence, applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.6,42,600/- (37,800 x 17). The claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, each of the claimants are further entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and love and affection totaling Rs. 2,00,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation in the following manner:- Heads Calculation For dependency 6,42,600 For loss of estate 15,000 For loss of consortium & Love and affection to 5 claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- each 2,00,000 For Funeral Expenses 15,000 Total compensation Awarded 8,72,600 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.8,72,600/- from which after deduction of Rs.4,95,186/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation would be Rs. 3,77,414/-. 13. It is noteworthy that respondent no.3 Gauri Bai (wife of deceased) who was the mother & natural guardian of minor claimants Kumari 6 Bharti and Ku. Khushbu died during the pendency of this appeal and Khembai Jolhe (Badi Mammi of minor claimants) has been added as their natural guardian. Since the widow of the deceased Gauri Bai has died, her share of the compensation amount shall be given to her minor children. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,77,414/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 15. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Claims 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 wherein the claimants reside. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai