1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 615 of 2016 1 - Smt. Kuwariya Patel, W/o Shri Aghnu @ Pardeshi Patel, Aged About 46 Years 2 - Urmila Bai, D/o Late Shri Aghnu @ Pardeshi Patel, Aged About 27 Years 3 - Champa Bai, D/o Late Shri Aghnu @ Pardeshi Patel, Aged About 24 Years 4 - Ruhel @ Rahul, S/o Late Shri Aghnu @ Pardeshi Patel, Aged About 22 Years 5 - Jawaharlal, S/o Late Shri Aghnu @ Pardeshi Patel, Aged About 20 Years 6 - Chameli Bai, D/o Late Shri Aghnu @ Pardeshi Patel, Aged About 18 Years 7 - Rameli Bai D/o Late Shri Aghnu @ Pardeshi Patel, Aged About 16 Years (at the time of filing the appeal she is aged about 19 years) All R/o Village Taalpur (Veeranpur) P. S. Sahas Lohara, Civil And Revenue District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Ashish Kumar Agrawal, S/o K. L. Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Hind Vinay Hotel, Ward No. 12, Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Owner) 2 - Md. Idarish Ansari, S/o Md. Jaleel Ansari, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Jamuna Kalri, Anuppur, P. S. Anuppur, District Anuppur M.P. (Driver) 3 - Md. Irfan, S/o Md. Usmaan, Aged About 38 Years R/o Ambikapur Road, Manendragarh, Ward No. 21, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Owner) 4 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, R/o Office 08, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur Rajasthan 302022, Branch Office Shriram Transpurt Insurance Company Ltd. Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company) ... Respondents For Appellants : Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent 1 : Smt. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent 2 : Notice upon him is dispensed with. For Respondent 3 : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent 4 : Shri Raghavendra Verma, Advocate. Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.03.22 16:45:29 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 21/03/2025 Heard 1. This is claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Mv Act) seeking enhancement of compensation passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Kabirdham (for short, the Claims Tribunal) in Claim Case No.133/2013 vide impugned award dated 26.11.2015. Parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred as per their description before the Claims Tribunal. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the accident occurred on 03.04.2013. The deceased by name Aghnu @ Pardeshi Patel, aged about 50 years, while returning to his home on a bullock-cart along with one Mohanlal, was knocked down to death by the vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-16-A-1659 (in short, the offending vehicle), being driven by Non-applicant No.2-Mohd. Idrish Ansari, owned by Non-applicant No.1- Ashish Kumar Agrawal and insured by Non-applicant No.4/insurer, which led to the Claim Petition preferred by the appellants / claimants seeking total compensation of Rs.12,66,000/- stating, inter alia, that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- - 15,000/- per month by vegetable production and by grocery shop. 3. The claim application was resisted by the Non-applicants on various grounds including that the insurance company taking a plea that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings and decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants (wife and children of the deceased) in Clam Case and awarded the compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of registration of claim dated 03.05.2013 till its realization while directing the 3 Non-applicants/respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 5. Shri Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was engaged in running a grocery shop and purchasing grocery items and besides that he was also producing vegetables, as is evident from Ex.A-16 to A-18 and was earning Rs.10,000/- - Rs.15,000/- per month and despite that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- which is extremely on lower side. He also submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects and that the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also on lower side. He placed his reliance on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 in support of his arguments. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 3, while admitting that there is no appeal filed by the respective respondents, submit that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company at that time, therefore, the insurance company be held liable for indemnifying the compensation and further submit that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for further enhancement. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 also submits that the offending vehicle was insured with his insurance company and with respect to income, he further submits that the appellants did not bring on record any sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the income of the deceased. He further submits that there is no scope for enhancement of compensation. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced by the parties. 4 9. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, although there is no documentary evidence showing exact income of the deceased, but the claimants submitted bills, which are exhibited as Ex.A.16, Ex.A.17 and Ex.A.18 showing that the deceased had purchased various grocery items on 10.02.2013, 28.02.2013 and 30.03.2013 from Mahavir Kirana and General Store, Bemetara, worth Rs.43,027/-, 28,898/- and 27,700/- respectively. Therefore, it appears from those bills that he was running grocery shop. Although the documents regarding income from the grocery shop have not been produced by the claimants, but considering the source of income of the deceased and further considering the Minimum Wages provisions, it can safely be inferred that the deceased’s monthly income would certainly be Rs.5,000/- per month and considering the facts of the case, nature of job and looking to minimum wages at the prevalent time, it is held that the deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by engaging in selling grocery items and by producing vegetables. I am of the considered opinion that the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal fallen in error in not awarding future prospects and that the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also on meager side. 10. Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), this Court re-computes the compensation in the following manner :- Sl. No. Description Amount in Rs. 1. Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month 60,000/- 2. 10% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects 6,000/- 3. Total annual income of the deceased 66,000/- 4. Multiplier of 9 applied to assess total loss of dependency. 5, 94,000/- 5. 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (Rs.5,94,000 – 1,48,500) 4,45,500/- 5 6. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 7. Loss of estate 15,000/- 8. Loss of spousal consortium to the appellant/claimant No.1 and loss of parental consortium to appellants No.2 to 7. 2,80,000/- Total compensation 7,55,500/- Award of the learned Tribunal. (-) 5,55,000/- Enhanced amount by this Court 2,00,500/- 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,00,500/-. The additional amount shall carry interest from 03.05.2013 as made by the Tribunal till its realisation. The enhanced amount with interest shall be deposited by the insurer/Respondent No.4. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani