1 2025:CGHC:1329 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 431 of 2016 1. Smt. Preeti Verma Wd/o Late Ajay Verma, aged about 29 years 2. Aryan Verma S/o Late Ajay Verma, aged about 5 years 3. Anish Verma S/o Late Ajay Verma, aged about 3 years No. 2 & 3 are minor through legal guardian mother Smt. Preeti Verma Wd/o Late Ajay Verma (Appellant No.1) All are R/o Shankar Nagar, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh, 4. Bhuvan Verma S/o Late Surit Ram Verma, aged about 58 years 5. Smt. Kamla Verma W/o Bhuvan Verma, aged about 54 years No. 5 & 6 are Permanent R/o Village: Kudaru, Baikunth, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents Versus 1. Ram Kumar Mishra S/o Ishwar Prasad Mishra, aged about 37 years R/o E.W.S. 654, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Heerapur, P.S. Amanaka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Laxmi Shankar Dubey W/o Rama Shankar Dubey, M.I.G.- 580, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Supela, Durg, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.01.10 17:20:28 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : None, though served. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 08.01.2025 1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 15.12.2015 passed by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District: Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 20 of 2015 awarding total compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, while fastening liability on the respondent No. 3. 2. As per claim petition, on 09.07.2013, the deceased Ajay Singh was returning to his home at Shankar Nagar, Durg in his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 04 CU 6697. When he reached near Durg Jalbandha Road, Mahavir Plastic Factory, at that time, the truck bearing registration No. CG 04 JA 9665 (herein after referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) which was being driven by respondent No. 1, rashly and negligently, dashed the vehicle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and duly insured with respondent No. 3. 3. On account of death of Ajay Singh, legal representatives of the 3 deceased preferred a claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,34,000/-. The said claim petition was resisted by the respondents. 4. The parties led evidence before the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the evidence led by the parties passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and that on other conventional heads the amount awarded by the Tribunal is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. In support, he placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/insurance company, while admitting that no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award, submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 8. So far as the issue No. 2 framed by the learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, it was answered in affirmative in holding that deceased Ajay Singh died on account of vehicular accident caused by offending 4 vehicle which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. 9. As regards the compensation, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 16,484/- per month which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 1,97,808/-. However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any future prospects. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the persons who are below 40 years and in the present case the age of the deceased was held to be 35 years by the Tribunal. Therefore, the applicable percentage of future prospects would be 40%. If 40% is added to the annual income then the total Annual Income would come to Rs. 2,76,932/- (Rs. 1,97,808+79,123/-). Learned Claims Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/4 towards his personal and living expenses and if 1/4 amount i.e. Rs. 69,233/- is deducted from the total annual income, then the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2,07,699/-. 10. The multiplier of 16 used by the Tribunal is just and proper and if the annual loss of dependency of Rs. 2,07,699/- is multiplied by 16, then the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 33,23,184/-. 11. The amount under conventional heads also appears to be on lower side, therefore, looking to the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards Loss of Estate and they are also entitled Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium in view of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the 5 case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra). Thus, the claimants are entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- towards conventional heads as held by this Court, in addition to Rs. 33,23,184/-. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs. 35,53,184/- as total compensation in place of Rs. 25,00,000/- from respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. 12. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. Rs. 25,00,000/- after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs. 35,53,184/-, the appellants herein are held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 10,53,184/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh