1 2025:CGHC:43394 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 694 of 2021 1 - Smt. Mase Poyam, W/o Kariyo Poyam, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Kilepal, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Baman Poyam S/o Late Kariyo Poyam Aged About 16 Years Appellant No. 02, Is Minor Through Mother Natural Guardian Appellant No. 01 Smt. Mase Poyam, R/o Village Kilepal, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Asmati D/o Late Kariyo Poyam Aged About 12 Years Appellant No. 03, Is Minor Through Mother Natural Guardian Appellant No. 01 Smt. Mase Poyam, R/o Village Kilepal, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Hemlata Poyam D/o Late Kariyo Poyam Aged About 9 Years Appellant No. 04, Is Minor Through Mother Natural Guardian Appellant No. 01 Smt. Mase Poyam, Caste Madiya, R/o Village Kilepal, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Lakhmi Poyam W/o Late Pandru Poyam Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Kilepal, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh … Appellants versus 1 - Baman Ram Poyam S/o Maso Poyam Aged About 21 Years, R/o Palanar, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh .........Driver 2 - Somaru Kuhrami S/o Paklu Kuhrami Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Bastanar, Tahsil Kilepal, Pujari Para, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh .........Owner 3 - Branch Manager, IFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Shop No. 205, Second Floor, M. M. Silver Plaza, Near Minig Office, Mahabir Nagar, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh .........(Insurer) --- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 26.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 07.08.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar Place, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 46/2020. 2. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,89,104/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of the deceased/Kariyo Poyam in an accident that took place on 13.10.2019, while the deceased was returning from Dilmili to Kilepal from his own side at 7:00 pm, the offending vehicle/motorcycle Bearing Registration No. CG-17- KN-9828 driven by respondent No. 1/driver- Baman Ram Poyam in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, therefore, he sustained grievous injuries on the various part of the body, therefore, he was admitted in the Dimprapal Medical College, Jagdalpur for treatment where he died. The matter was reported to the Police Station- Kodenar against respondent No.1/driver. 3. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased Kariyo Poyam was 35 years of age, he was doing work of Mason, from which he used to earn Rs. 15,000 per month. The claimants were totally dependent upon the earning of the deceased as he was the sole bread winner of the family as such, they claimed a total sum of Rs. 36,34,000/- with interest as compensation under various heads. 4. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal 3 after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the claimants for enhancement 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount as compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as notional income of Rs. 8,320/- per month whereas there was evidence and also pleading to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month ought to have been assessed by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded less compensation under the other heads. Thus, the appeal may be allowed enhancing the compensation suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supporting the award impugned submits that the learned Tribunal minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper according to the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the evidence available on record; number of dependents i.e., old aged mother, young widow wife and three minor children; age of the deceased; date of accident; nature of job as he was doing the work of Mason, from which he used to financially meet ends of his family and it is not disputed that he was sole bread winner of his family & looking to the minimum wages prevailing at that time, this Court is of 4 the view that Rs. 10,000/- can be safely taken as income of the deceased. 9. In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S. No. Particular Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 01. Monthly Income of the deceased 10,000/- 02. Future Prospects @ 40% 4,000/- 03. Total Income 14,000/- 04. Total Yearly Income 14,000X12= 1,68,000/- 05. Personal expenditure (1/4) 1,68,000/4= 42,000/- 06. Net Income 1,68,000-42,000= 1,26,000/- 07. Multiplier of 16 applied to assess total loss of dependency 1,26,000x16=20,16,000/- 08. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 09. Loss of estate 15,000/- 10. Loss of Spousal, filial and parental Consortium 2,00,000/- (40,000 each A1 to A5) Total compensation 22,46,000/- 10. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimant/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. Rs.22,46,000/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 7,89,104/--, after deducting the said amount, the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced 5 amount of Rs. 14,56,896/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e., 25.01.2020 to be deposited by respondent No.3/Insurance Company within a period of 60 days. On deposit being made, Rs. 3,00,000/- each be invested as fixed deposit in the name of appellant Nos. 1 to 4 in a nationalized bank for two years or till attaining the majority as the case may be. Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be disbursed to appellant No.5 through bank transaction/ account payee cheque. Remaining enhancement amount shall be disbursed to appellant No. 1 through the bank transaction/account payee cheque. 11. Appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned award to the extent as indicated herein above Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge AMIT PATEL