1 2025:CGHC:1970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1181 of 2022 1 - Radheshyam Gupta S/o Late Govardhan Gupta, Aged About 49 Years Caste Rainiyar, R/o Banshipur, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Shyampaiyan W/o Radheshyam Gupta, Aged About 47 Years Caste Rainiyar, R/o Banshipur, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Ku. Khushbu Gupta, D/o Radheshyam Gupta, Aged About 24 Years Caste Rainiyar, R/o Banshipur, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants/ Claimants versus 1 - Ramprasad Rajwade S/o Mohan Raj Rajwade, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Batra, Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver) 2 - Subhash Kumar Rajwade, S/o Late Hausila Prasad Rajwade, Aged About 52 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Batra, Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)(owner) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- Near Ambedkar Chowk, Banaras Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh)(Insurer) ---- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For the Insurance Company : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.01.2025 Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 1. The appellants/claimants have assailed the award passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur in Claim Case 44 of 2020 dated 29.7.2022. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that while the deceased – Pintu Gupta was going to Ambikapur from his house, in his motorcycle, the offending vehicle ALTO-800 bearing registration No.C.G.-29-A-1973 which was being driven by Ramprasad Rajwade, dashed him from the back side and consequently, he died during the course of treatment on 22.9.2019. Subhash Kumar Rajwade was the owner of the offending vehicle. He would further submit that an FIR was lodged and the charge-sheet was filed against the driver for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. He would contend that the deceased was working as a Civil Engineer under A-Class contractor and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He would also submit that the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error of law in awarding only 40% of monthly income as future prospect whereas, the figure should have been 50%. He would further contend that the Tribunal has not awarded Rs.40,000/- for the loss of consortium to claimant No.3, thus, he would pray to enhance the amount on the above-stated heads. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed the award taking into consideration all aspects of the matter. He would contend that the right multiplier 3 was applied and the compensation was calculated strictly in accordance with law and there is no scope for interference. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The deceased – Pintu Gupta died on 22.9.2019 while he was going to Ambikapur from his house as the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG-29A-1973 dashed him from the backside. The age of the deceased was 25 years and he was earning Rs.12,000/- by working as a Civil Engineer under the Contractor. The income is not disputed by the other parties and the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding in this regard accordingly. The age of the deceased was more than 25 years, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 as the Tribunal found his age between 26-30. The learned Tribunal has added 40% of his monthly income as future prospects which appears to be erroneous and it should be 50%. Likewise, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium was not awarded to claimant No.3 who is the unmarried sister of the deceased. 6. Complete Assessment of Compensation Entitlement for the Appellants/ Claimants:- (i) Annual Dependency:- Monthly income :- Rs.12,000/-. 50% of the monthly income = Rs.6,000/- Total monthly income = 12,000 + 6,000/- = Rs.18,000/- Deduction as deceased was unmarried ½ = 18,000 x ½ = Rs.9,000/- Net annual dependency : Rs.9,000 x 12 = Rs.1,08,000/- (ii) Multiplier:- Considering the age of the deceased (25y), a multiplier of 17 -4- is appropriate. Total dependency compensation:- Rs. 1,08,000 x 17 = Rs. 18,36,000/-. (iii) Additional Compensation:- Loss of consortium for Claimant No. 3 (sister):-Rs.40,000/- Loss of consortium for Claimants No. 1 & 2 (parents):- Rs. 40,000 x 2 = Rs. 80,000/- Funeral expenses:- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of estate:- Rs. 15,000/- Total Additional Compensation:- Rs. 40,000 + Rs. 80,000 + Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000 = Rs. 1,50,000/- (iv) Total Compensation Amount:- Dependency compensation:- Rs. 18,36,000/- Additional compensation:- Rs. 1,50,000/- Thus, total Compensation:- Rs. 19,86,000/- 7. As the learned Tribunal has already awarded compensation of Rs.18,34,600/-, the claimants would be entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs.1,51,400/-. This amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till its realization. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified up to the extent indicated above. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi