Page No.1 of 7 IN MAC-1256-2022 2025:CGHC:39940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1256 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 18.07.2022, passed in Claim Case No.107 of 2019 (Smt. Kala Thakur and another v. Sarjuram Dhruw and others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG)] 1 - Smt. Kala Thakur Wd./o Late. Ram Prasad Thakur Aged About 45 Years Residing At Thakurpara, Village- Salemeta, Police Station- Bhanpuri ...............Claimants, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Haresh Kumar Thakur S/o Lt. Ram Prasad Thakur Aged About 18 Years (Brother Of The Deceased) Residing At Thakurpara, Village- Salemeta, Police Station- Bhanpuri, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/ Claimants versus 1 - Sarjuram Dhruw S/o Peeluram Dhruw Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Tipper Vehicle Driver, R/o Tikanpal, Post- Usari, Police Station Bhanpuri .............Driver., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Satvir Singh Gill S/o Lt. Sukhdev Singh Gill R/o Sheetalapara Ward, Kondagaon, Police Station- Kondagaon ............Owner, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriential Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Hotel Lakshman Avenue, Jagdalpur .................Insurance Co. Policy Certificate No. 192091/31/2018/1789 Validity Dt. From 24-10- 2017 Till 23-10-2018, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : None though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 7 IN MAC-1256-2022 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 08.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 18.07.2022, passed in Claim Case No.107 of 2019 (Smt. Kala Thakur and another v. Sarjuram Dhruw and others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.14,74.032/- as compensation for the death of Patiram Thakur, who was aged about 21 years on the date of occurrence. 2. Facts of the case, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that on the date of occurrence i.e. 14.06.2018, while deceased- Patiram Thakur was returning to his home from Village Bamhani on his motor-cycle and, at about 02:30 PM, on the way, the respondent No.01- driver, who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. Tripper Truck bearing No.CG-07-CB- 0275 drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor-cycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died. Thereafter, the appellants, who are widow mother and brother of the deceased respectively, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.27,18,000/- pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 22 years of age and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month Page No.3 of 7 IN MAC-1256-2022 from the work of Electrician. The deceased used to maintain his family members including his widow mother and brother and, after his death, his family members have no any source of income to survive. Even otherwise, the deceased was aged about 22 years on the date of accident and was a able-bodied person and, on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties. 3. Respondents No.1 & 2 – driver and owner of the offending vehicle submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the accident was not caused by the aforesaid vehicle and the deceased has died on account of his own carelessness, moreover, on the date of the accident, the driver of the said vehicle was having valid driving license as well as the said vehicle (Tripper Truck) was duly insured with respondent No.3, therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.3. 4. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company has opposed the claim application stating that the said vehicle (Tripper Truck) was being used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased- Patiram Thakur died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle i.e. Tripper Truck bearing No.CG-07-CB- Page No.4 of 7 IN MAC-1256-2022 0275, which was driven by the respondent No.01 and owned by respondent No.02 herein. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs.14,74,032/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.8360/- per month which should be Rs.9230/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh because the deceased was a skilled labour woking as Electrician in Zone “C”. He also submits that the learned Claims tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/2 amount towards personal living, whereas it ought to have been deducted 1/3 because after the death of the deceased, his widow mother and non- earning brother is dependent upon him. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of the deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. He vehemently argued that in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Page No.5 of 7 IN MAC-1256-2022 Transport Corporation and another 1 50% (½) deduction has rightly been deducted from the income of the deceased towards personal living and same need not to be interfered with. As such, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Satyanarayan Sonkar to be Rs.8360/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, since the deceased was working as Electrician (skilled labour) in Zone “C” place, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.9230/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) vis- a-vis Rs.1,10,760/- per annum. Similarly, with regard to deduction towards personal living, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) has held as under: “32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 Page No.6 of 7 IN MAC-1256-2022 sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 10. In the case at hand, though the deceased was unmarried and aged about 21 years on the date of occurrence, but his widow mother and non-earning brother is dependent upon him, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/2 amount from the income of the deceased towards personal living, which ought to have been 1/3 deduction in light of the decision of Sarla Verma (supra). As such, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 2, Sarla Verma (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.8360 x 12 = Rs.1,00,320/- Rs.9,230 x 12 = Rs.1,10,760/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs.40,128 = Rs.1,40,448/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs.44,304 = Rs.1,55,064/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 (Rs.70,224) = Rs. 70,224/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.51,688) = Rs. 1,03,376/- 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.7 of 7 IN MAC-1256-2022 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs. 12,64,032/- (x) 18 = Rs. 18,60,768/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium (for appellants No.1 & 2) Rs. 40,000/- X 2 = Rs.80,000/- Rs. 40,000/- X 2 = Rs.80,000/- 8. For Medical Bills Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs. 14,74,032/- Rs. 20,70,768/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.14,74,035/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.20,70,768/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.14,74,032/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,96,736/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 04.05.2019 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if