NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 2216 of 2019 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Office, Mv Trade Center, Second Flor, Near Ghadi Chowk Dhamatari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ------ Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Rajbai W/o Late Mitthu Lal Alias Mithu Lal Sonwani Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Khairwahi, Thana Tahsil - Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Jagdish Sonwani S/o Late Mitthu Lal Alias Mithu Lal Sonwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Khairwahi, Thana Tahsil - Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. Nandkishor S/o Late Mitthu Lal Alias Mithu Lal Sonwani Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Khairwahi, Thana Tahsil - Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4. Komeshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Horilal Sahu Aged About 30 Years Address Village - Chulhapathra , Thana/tah. Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh..(Driver And Owner), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ------ Respondents __________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 3: Shri Aman Tamrakar, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : None appeared though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 04 /09/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellant / Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 27/06/2019 passed in Claim Case No. 115/2018 by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) by which the learned Tribunal against a compensation of Rs. 19,37,500/- an amount of Rs.18,39,432/- awarded in favour of the respondent No.1 to 3/claimants on account of death of deceased - Mitthu Lal alias Mithu Lal Sonwani sustained in an ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.26 15:21:45 +0530 -2- accident that occurred on 19/05/2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Car bearing registration No. CG-04-H-7147. 2. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under section 166 of the MV Act filed by the respondent No.1 to 3/claimants was aged at about 61 years. He was working as ward-boy in the Primary Health Center, Bodra, Development Block - Gurur under the Health Department of the State Government. It was further pleaded that he was earning gross salary of Rs.32793/- and net salary of Rs.28,613/- per month. The respondent No. 1 to 3/claimants were dependent on the salary of the deceased. Therefore, the above stated compensation with interest was claimed as mentioned in the first paragraph. 3. The claim application was resisted by the appellant /Insurance Company on various grounds including a plea that there is a violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. 4. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed four issues and decided the same in favour of the respondent No.1 to 3 / claimants and awarded the above stated compensation by the impugned award which led to filing of this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently argued that the respondent No. 2 and 3 are the major sons of the deceased under any stretch of imagination they could not be dependent on deceased. As from the record it could can safely be gathered that only respondent No.1 / claimant no.1 wife of the deceased was dependent upon the deceased, therefore instead of one third deduction from the personal expenses of the deceased, the learned tribunal ought to have deducted one half from his income. Therefore, the amount of compensation may be reduced suitably. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 3 submits that even if it is assumed that the respondent No. 2 and 3 were not dependent upon the income of the deceased; the respondent No.1 being wife of the deceased was wholly dependent on the income of the deceased and in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 -3- SCC 121, the learned tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd income for personal expenses of deceased. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended record. 8. Learned tribunal found the yearly income of the deceased after all relevant deduction to 3,79,164/- and held that apart from his wife two sons were dependent, therefore one third deduction for personal expenses is made and by applying the multiplier of 7 awarded the compensation of Rs.17,69,432/- for loss of dependency and further awarded Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses, and thus awarded Rs.18,39,432/-. The submission is made that since the respondent No.2 and 3 were not dependent, therefore one half deduction ought to have been made. In the given facts and circumstance of the case, particularly when the wife respondent No.1 dependent upon the income and she has lost her source of income which was given by the deceased, this submission cannot be accepted. Even, otherwise, the Court has to see that in the fact and circumstances of the case just compensation has been awarded. The amount of the compensation awarded by the learned claim tribunal does not appear to be excessive and therefore this appeal does not have any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. Sd/- Sd/-/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish