1 2025:CGHC:21337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 28-02-2025 Judgment delivered on : 08-05-2025 MAC No. 72 of 2017 1 - Sarita Painkra Wd/o Late Mithilesh Painkra, Aged About 20 Years 2 - Chandraprakash Singh Aged About 3 Years, son of Late Mithilesh Paikra, 3 - Smt. Nirmal Singh W/o Shri Saliram, Aged About 48 Years 4 - Saliram S/o Late Uravram, Aged About 50 Years 5 - Tanmay S/o Late Mithilesh Painkra, Aged About 2 Years Minors (Appellants No. 2 and 5) through their natural guardian mother Appellant No.1. All are resident of Nawadeeh Chowk, Sipat, P.S. Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh -- Appellants/claimants versus 2 1 - Mohd Saleem Khan S/o Maqbul Khan, Aged About 46 Years R/o Bargidih, P.S. Batauli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of The Pickup No. UP 64/ H-8440 2 - Santosh Kumar Sarkar S/o Mohan Sarkar, R/o Ajirema, Raghavpuri, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of The Pickup No. UP 64/ H-8440 3 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Chief Manager, E-8, EPIP Ricko, Industrial Area Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302022, Through Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Manager, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer Of The Pickup No. UP 64/ H-8440 ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondents : None though respondents No. 1 & 2 are served. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J CAV Judgment This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 31.8.2016 passed by 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (in short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.516/2014 awarding total compensation of Rs.4.28 lacs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization if the said amount is not deposited within 60 days with the Tribunal, fastening liability on the non-applicant No.3/insurance company. 3 02. As per claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act of 1988”), on 22.7.2013 while Mithilesh was going on motorcycle with his relative Vikas, non-applicant No.1 by driving vehicle Pickup bearing No. UP 64/H 8840 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle near village Lahpatra as a result of which the rider Vikas as also pillion rider Mithilesh Paikra suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. On report being lodged, offence under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC was registered against non-applicant No.1. The claimants further pleaded that at the time of incident, deceased Mithilesh was 25 years of age, working as driver and earning Rs.7,000/- pm and Rs.100/- as daily allowance. The claimants were fully dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, they claimed a total sum of Rs.24.98 lacs as compensation under various heads from the non-applicants. 03. Non-applicants No.1 & 2 did not file their written statement and remained ex-parte. However, non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement contended that rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was sitting, was riding the motorcycle negligently and as such, owner and insurer of the motorcycle were also necessary party. There was no negligence on the part of non-applicant No.1. It also denied dependency of the claimants on the deceased. It was further pleaded that non-applicant No.1 was also not having valid and effective licence for driving the commercial vehicle. Looking to the manner in 4 which the accident took place, it is a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and non-applicant No.1. Therefore the claim case is liable to be dismissed as against non-applicant No.3/insurer. 04. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as seven issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence this appeal by the claimants for enhancement. 05. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned award is bad in law as well as on facts. The deceased was 25 years of age, he was a driver by profession and earning Rs.7,000/- pm whereas the Tribunal assessed his monthly income on notional basis as Rs.3,000/- only. Further no amount was awarded towards future prospect, for loss of love and affection, estate, pain and suffering etc. This apart, the learned Tribunal awarded interest on the lower side @ 6% pa, that too if the awarded amount is not deposited within 60 days whereas it ought to have awarded interest @ 9% pm on the compensation from the date of application till realization. In view of this, the compensation amount deserves to be enhanced suitably in accordance with law. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram 5 and others, 2018 (4) ACCD 2106 (SC) and Smt. Anjali and others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2023 (1) ACCD 30 (SC). 06. None for the respondents though respondents No. 1 and 2 are served. However, respondent No.3 remains unserved for want of correct address. 07. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and perused the material available on record. 08. As regards income of the claimant, the claimants pleaded that the deceased was a driver by profession and was earning Rs.7000/- per month as also getting Rs.100/- per day towards allowance. However, no oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the above fact has been adduced by the claimants. In these circumstances, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income on notional basis as Rs.3,000/- which appears to be on the lower side and therefore, considering the notional income of skilled labour at the relevant time, it can safely be taken as Rs.5000/- in the present case i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum. At the time of incident the deceased was 26 years of age. As such, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, there has to be 40% addition of the annual income towards future prospect which being done makes the annual income as Rs.84,000/-. Looking to the number of dependents, there has to be 1/4th deduction towards 6 personal and living expenses of the deceased. After such deduction, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.63,000/-. In this case, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable and after applying multiplier, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,71,000/-. Further, the amount awarded towards the conventional heads being not in accordance with the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) it needs to be enhanced accordingly. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as under: Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month. Rs.60,000/- per annum 02. 40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. (Rs.60,000 + Rs.24,000) Rs.84,000/- 03. 1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (Rs.84,000-21,000) Rs.63,000/- 04. Multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs.10,71,000/- 05. Towards loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1 Towards loss of parental consortium to Rs.40,000/- 7 claimants No. 2 & 5 each @ Rs.40,000/- Towards loss of filial consortium to claimants No. 3 & 4 each @ Rs.40,000/- Towards funeral expenses Towards loss of estate Rs.80,000/- Rs.80,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.13,01,000/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.4,28 lacs, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.8,73,000/- (Rupees eight lacs and seventy three thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. However, rest of the terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 09. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.05.08 15:59:39 +0530