1 2025:CGHC:15521 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1877 of 2018 1. Shobhnath Yadav S/o Ramprasad Yadav, Aged About 52 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Kotmi, P.S. and Tahsil- Udaipur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Shivkunwar Bai W/o Shobhnath Yadav, Aged About 48 Years, Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Kotmi, P.S. and Tahsil- Udaipur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Ajay Yadav S/o Narayan Yadav, Aged About 25 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Village Gosaidi, P.S. Chhatarpur, District : Palamu, Jharkhand. 2. Jitedra Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shri Prassid Pandey, Occupation Owner, R/o Village Dhanibar, Post Amba, District- Aurangabad, Jharkhand. 3. Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company, 2nd Floor, Bear House No. 02 N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600001. ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.04.03 14:01:56 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (02.04.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 09.03.2018 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 28/2017 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,79,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 18.05.2016 at about 6.00 pm, when Santosh Yadav (now deceased) was going to his relative’s house by motorcycle at that time, the trailer truck bearing registration No. BR- 26-K-0320, driven by Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the deceased, due to which Santosh Yadav (deceased) suffered grievous injuries and died while undergoing treatment. After that, a report was lodged based on the above stated offence. It is stated that on the date of the incident, the age of the deceased was 20 years who was the student of class 12th. Due to casual death of the son of the appellants/claimants, there is an irreparable loss to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants preferred an application to claim a total compensation of Rs. 38,00,000/- for their irreparable loss. 3. When the claim application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for compensation was filed by the parents of the deceased before the claims tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of the alleged vehicle, the tribunal in absence of appropriate proof of income of the deceased was taken Rs. 3000/- per month and 36,000/- per annum, as per wages of the unskilled worker 3 at that relevant time. The aged of deceased considered about 20 years according to the postmortem report and the claimants are the mother and father of the deceased so deduction towards personal and caring expenses would be 1/2 which is 18000/- and considering the age of the deceased i.e., 20 years according to postmortem report so after applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 3,24,000/- and Rs.55,000/- has been awarding on other heads, thus, total compensation of Rs. 3,79,000/- (3,24,000+ 55,000 = 3,79,000/-) with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that at the time of accident as per minimum wages the income of the deceased should be computed as Rs.6,107/- per month i.e., Rs. 73,284/-per annum, but the learned Claims Tribunal has only assessed notional income as Rs. 3000/- per month i.e., Rs. 36000/- per annum and total compensation of Rs. 3,79,000/- has been awarded including the amount of other conventional heads of Rs. 55,000/-. Learned counsel for appellants also submits that the learned trial Court has not computed future prospect which should be computed 40%. He further submits that the Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation under other heads which also needs to be enhanced suitably. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed. 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 Learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further 4 enhancement. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. 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. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,79,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As regards income of the deceased, keeping in mind the wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc., I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 6,107/- per month. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 73,284/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 29,313/-, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,02,597/-. 10.The deceased was aged about 20 years and was unmarried and the claimants are the mother and father of the deceased so deduction towards personal and caring expenses would be 1/2 i.e., 51,298/-, as has rightly held by the Tribunal as per para 18 of the impugned judgment, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 51,298/-. In view of 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, 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 18, as has rightly held by the Claims Tribunal, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 9,23,364/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-, for funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/- each i.e. Rs. 80,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 10,33,364/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Compensation towards dependency Rs. 9,23,364/- 02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 03 Towards Love and affection to all the two claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 80,000/- 04 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Awarded Rs. 10,33,364/- 11. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 10,33,364/-. After deducting Rs. 3,79,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 6,54,364/-. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 6,54,364/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry simple interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. It is made clear that the remaining amount of award shall be paid by the insurance company. 6 13. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.