2025:CGHC:43404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 673 of 2021 Manohar Yadav, S/o Laganu Yadav, aged about 25 Years, Occupation Owner And Driver Of Vehicle, R/o Village - Lahsunpath, P.S. And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Naihari, W/o Late Sanu, aged about 52 Years, R/o Village - Lahsunpath, P.S. And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 2. Gama Ram, S/o Late Sanu, aged about 37 Years, R/o Village - Lahsunpath, P.S. And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3. Ropam Ram, S/o Late Sanu, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village - Lahsunpath, P.S. And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4. Pentu Ram, S/o Late Sanu, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village - Lahsunpath, P.S. And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 5. Tulsi, S/o Late Sanu, aged about 34 Years, R/o Village - Lahsunpath, P.S. And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents Cause Title is taken from CIS system __________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Navneet Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 to 5 : Ms. Akansha Vishwakarma, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________ ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.24 12:19:29 +0530 -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 11 /09/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) has been filed by the Driver – Owner of the offending vehicle pick-up bearing registration No. CG-15-A-8013. Assailing the correctness and Validity of the award dated 10/09/2021 passed in MACC No. - 16/ 2019 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’), Balrampur palce Ramanujganj (C.G.). 2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.17,58,000/- the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.05,27,380/- as compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants on account of death of deceased – Sanu Ram in an accident that occurred on 07/06/2017 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 3. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under section 166 of the MV Act, deceased was aged at about 55 years and was a Labour earning Rs.42,00/- per month and also earning Rs.5,00,000/- yearly from agriculture work. Respondent /Claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4. The claim application was resisted by the appellant on various grounds including including stating that the accident had not occurred from the offending vehicle and this vehicle has falsely implicated in the case; excessive compensation has been demanded. The deceased was aged about 60-70 years and rather dependent upon the income of his sons and Government. 5. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed as many as three issues and decided the same in favour of the respondents/ claimants and awarded the above stated compensation. -3- 6. In the case in hand a cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure R/w Rule 242 (3) of the C.G. Motor Vehicles Rule 1994 has also been filed by the respondent/claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the vehicle of the appellant has wrongly been implicated in the offense, no accident has occurred from the offending vehicle. Alternative he submits that the amount of compensation is on higher side and appellant no. 2 to 5 are major sons who could not be said to be dependent upon the income of the deceased. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents supports the impugned award and submits that the amount of compensation is on lower side, therefore, the cross objection for enhancement of compensation may be allowed. 9. In reply to it, learned counsel for the appellant submits that no sufficient pleadings available on record to allow the cross-objection. Therefore, the cross-objection may be rejected. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the appended documents. 11. First contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the offending vehicle is not involved in the accident and it has been falsely implicated. The incident had occurred on 07/06/2017 and FIR of the said accident was lodged on 08/06/2017 specifically mentioning the number of the offending vehicle. The explanation also given that on account of night and no availability of any resource, report could not be lodged immediately. Apart from this post-mortem of the deceased was also conducted and cause of death was found to be shock on account of brain hemorrhage and lacerated wound and between 10-12 hrs. and mode of death was accidental in nature. The post-mortem was conducted on 08/06/2017 at 02:00PM. Investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet -4- against the appellant has also been filed. Though the appellant examined himself and stated that his vehicle was falsely implicated it does not appears that against the charge-sheet filed, he has made any complaint to any higher officials. The evidence available clearly corborates the happening of the incident. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 in the opinion of this Court, the respondents / claimants have able to prove the happening of the accident on preponderance of the probabilities. The proceedings before the Claim Tribunal are summary in nature and therefore strict application of evidence Act may not be necessary. From the record this Court is satisfy the respondent have been able to prove the accident caused by the appellant and the finding in this regard on issue no.1 by the learned Tribunal is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and is hereby maintained. 12. Now this leads to second point of just compensation to be awarded. The deceased was was found to be 55 years of age and that appears to be based on proper appreciation of evidence. Considering the age mentioned in the post- mortem report and as such no other documentary evidence on record and therefore this finding is affirmed. The appellant No,. 2 to 5 are major sons of about 37, 30, 27 and 34 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are dependent upon the income of the deceased. However, the respondent No.1 being wife would naturally be dependent upon the income of the deceased. The income of the deceased assessed to Rs.4200/- appears to be on lower side. Considering the age and minimum wages, this court assessed the monthly wages of the deceased to Rs.6000/- and reassessing the compensation. 13. Therefore, this Court is inclined to recompute the compensation in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. -5- Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, the claimant No.1 is entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Head Calculation 1. Monthly Income Rs.6000/- 2. 10% future prospect Rs.600/- 3. Monthly Income Rs.6600/- 4. Yearly Income Rs.79,200/- (6600 X 12) 5. Income after 1/3 deduction for personal expenses Rs.52,800/- (79200– 26400) 6. Multiplier of 11 to be applied Rs.580800/- (52800 X 11 ) 7. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, Spousal consortium Rs.70,000/- Total compensation Rs.6,50,800/- 14. Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.527380/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the respondent No.1/claimant is held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.01,23,420/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of appeal i.e.18/10/2021. The amount shall deposited by the appellant within a period of 60 days from the date of copy of receipt of this order. 15. After deposit, Rs.01,23,420/- shall be paid to respondent No.1 by bank transaction / account payee cheque. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent. Sd/- Sd/-/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish