1 2025:CGHC:31760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1502 of 2018 1 - Smt. Gouri Verma W/o W/o Late Mahesh Kumar Verma Aged About 27 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Smt. Gouri Verma, R/o Village Pendri, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Shanti Nagar Below Uslapur Over Bridge Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. 2 - Siddharth Verma S/o S/o Late Mahesh Kumar Verma Aged About 7 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Smt. Gouri Verma, R/o Village Pendri, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Shanti Nagar Below Uslapur Over Bridge Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kunal Verma S/o S/o Late Mahesh Kumar Verma Aged About 4 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Smt. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Gouri Verma, R/o Village Pendri, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Shanti Nagar Below Uslapur Over Bridge Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Uday Ram Verma S/o S/o Nathuram Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Pendri, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Shanti Nagar Below Uslapur Over Bridge Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Champa Devi W/o W/o Uday Ram Verma Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Pendri, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Shanti Nagar Below Uslapur Over Bridge Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Nand Kishore Ahirwar S/o S/o Shivcharan Ahirwar Aged About 28 Years R/o In Front Of Madua R. T. O. Office Police Station- Kotwali, Madua, Tahsil And District Madua U. P. ..............Driver Of Truck No. U. P. 78-Bt-6978., District : Mau, Uttar Pradesh. 2 - Arvind Kumar Saxena D/o S/o Umesh Kumar R/o House No. 133/260 T. P. Nagar Kanpur Nagar U. P. Through Power Of Attorney K. Ajay Kumar Son Of K. Nageshwar Rao, R/o House No. Q- 146/7, 3 Type2, W. R. S. Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .........Owner Of Truck No. Up-78-Bt-6978, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ..............Insurer Of Truck No. Up-78-Bt-6978, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1507 of 2018 1 - Bhupat Singh Rajput S/o Jhanglu Rajput Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Botebod, Police Station- Nandghat, Tahsil- Nawagarh, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present Address- Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh....(Claimants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Nand Kishore Ahirwar S/o Shivcharan Ahirwar Aged About 28 Years R/o In Front Of Madua R.T.O. Office, Police Station- Kotwali, Madua, Tahsil And District- Madua, Uttar Pradesh.....(Driver Of Truck No. Up- 78-Bt-6978), District : Mahoba *, Uttar Pradesh. 2 - Arvind Kumar Sexena S/o Umesh Kumar R/o House No. 133/260 T.P. Nagar, Kanpur Nagar U.P. Through Power Of Attorney K. Ajay Kumar S/o K. Nageshwar Rao, R/o Hose No. Q-146/7, Type 2, W.R.S. 4 Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgrh.....(Owner Of Truck No. Up-78-Bt-6978), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office-In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgrh....(Insurer Of Truck No. Up-78-Bt-6978)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2. : None. For Respondent(s) No. 3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. Both the appeals i.e. MAC No. 1502/2018 and MAC No. 1507/2018 are arising out of one accident, against the one award dated 31.08.2018 passed by the learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 312/2016 and Claim Case No. 313/2016 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, claimants/appellants have filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 5 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of the death of Arjun Singh in a road accident that occurred on 13.04.2016. On the said date, Mahesh Kumar Verma along with his relatives Lileshwar Verma and Arjun Singh was traveling to Ratanpur on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-AF- 7539. When they reached near Takhatpur, their motorcycle was dashed by an offending truck bearing registration No. UP-78-BT- 6978, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, resulting in the deaths of Arjun Singh and Mahesh Kumar Verma and causing grievous injuries to Lileshwar Verma. It was submitted that Arjun Singh was aged about 9 years old and had a bright future. Upon service of notice, the respondents have filed their written statements and denied the allegations. After hearing both parties, the learned Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 31.01.2018, assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, and determined the total dependency at Rs. 1,50,000/- by applying a multiplier of 15. Additionally, Rs. 75,000/- was awarded towards future prospects and Rs. 30,000/- towards other conventional heads. MAC No. 1502/2018 3. After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6 20,959/- per month i.e. Rs. 2,51,508/- per annum. After adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 1,25,754/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 3,77,262/- on which after Rs. 2,50,000/- the remaining amount of Rs. 1,27,268/- is deducted by Rs. 12,727/- under the head of 10% of income tax, the amount after deduction of annual income tax of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,14,541/- and the amount before income tax exemption is Rs. 2,50,000/-. Thus, total Rs. 2,50,000+1,14,541= Rs. 3,64,541/-. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 91,135/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 2,73,406/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 36 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, children and parents of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 41,01,090/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 41,71,090/- in favour of the wife, children and parents of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 41,71,090/- which is 7 not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on 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 of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, the deceased Mahesh 8 Kumar Verma was posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 and was earning Rs. 22,500/- per month at the time of accident and was aged about 36 years old. Therefore, the Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 20,959/- per month which appears to be proper on accident. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 20,959/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,51,508/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 1,25,754/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 3,77,262/- on which after Rs. 2,50,000/- the remaining amount of Rs. 1,27,268/- is deducted by Rs. 12,727/- under the head of 10% of income tax, the amount after deduction of annual income tax of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,14,541/- and the amount before income tax exemption is Rs. 2,50,000/-. Thus, total Rs. 2,50,000+1,14,541= Rs. 3,64,541/-. 11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 36 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, children and parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 91,135/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 2,73,406/-. In view of 9 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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, after applying multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 41,01,090/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X5+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,40,000/- for consortium and after deducting of Rs. 40,000 (already given to the wife of the deceased) the total amount towards consortium to Rs. 2,00,000/- has been awarded. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, children and parents of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 43,37,090/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 41,01,090/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X5+10% Rs. 2,00,000/- 10 +10%-40,000). 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 43,37,090/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 43,37,090/-. After deducting Rs. 41,71,090/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,66,000/-. 13. In the result, the MAC No. 1502/2018 is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, children and parents of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,66,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. MAC No. 1507/2018 14. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meager amount and considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the age of the deceased and the same deserves to 11 be enhanced suitably as per law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Kishan Gopal vs. Lata and other (2014) 1 SCC 244. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 supported the compensation amount of the award impugned and submitted that there is no need for enhancement. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto and Others reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 wherein in a case of death of a minor child aged about 12 years, the Supreme Court relying its judgments in the cases of Kishan Gopal & Anr v. Lala & Ors, (2014) 1 SCC 12 244 and Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali and Anr v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Anr, (2022) 1 SCC 317, in paragraphs – 14, 15, 16 & 18 held as under:- “14. Recently in the case of Kurvan Ansari (supra), wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 6.9.2004, this Court taking notional income as Rs. 25,000/-, applying the multiplier of 15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,75,000/- and adding Rs. 55,000/- in conventional heads, awarded Rs. 4,70,000/-. 15. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively. 16. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the value of the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 13 2,00,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation, as awarded by the High Court is enhanced by Rs. 3,00,000/-, in addition. The total amount of compensation would be Rs. 5,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of Claim Petition till realization. The due amount be paid by the respondent No. 4 – United India Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from today.” 20.In the case in hand, the deceased was also 9 years at the time of accident, applying the same principle and analogy in the present case also, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation payable to the claimants herein in similar terms and quantifies the compensation at Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 1,05,000/- under the conventional head. Thus, the appellants/claimants in the instant case shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- instead of Rs. 2,55,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 21.Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded. After deducting Rs. 2,55,000/- as awarded by the claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,45,000/-. 22. Accordingly, the instant MAC No. 1507/2018 is partly allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat