1 2025:CGHC:27567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 701 of 2017 1. Nande Lal S/o Late Kashi Sao, Aged About 45 Years R/o Supela Bhilai Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Devrani W/o Nande Lal, Aged About 43 Years R/o Supela Bhilai Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Rajbalay Kumar S/o Nande Lal, Aged About 25 Years R/o Supela Bhilai Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Kumari Rubi D/o Nande Lal, Aged About 16 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Father Nande Lal, R/o Supela Bhilai Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Rajesh Kumar S/o Pullu Ram Bind, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Karanpur Thana Dehat Kotwali Distt. Mirjapur U.P. Hall Mukam Quarter No.62, G. Camp 01, Bhilai Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04/8377, Chhattisgarh 2. Ghanshyam Kumar Nirala S/o Mahgiram, Aged About 38 Years R/o M.I.G. 2/2244 M.P. Housing Bord Bhilai Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04/8377, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Lal Ganga Complex Shop No. 303-30 G.E.Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh .............Insurer, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Ramkhilawan, Aged About 21 Years R/o New Krishna Nager Supela Bhilai Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.01 11:25:53 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25. 06.2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 17.09.2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, in Claim Case No. 06/2011, wherein, an award of Rs. 2,98,000/- was passed along with interest @ 6% from the date of the application till its realization. 2. The facts of the present case are that the deceased Dev Kumar was sitting in a Minidor and one Amar @ Anuj Sao was driving it, they were going to Bilaspur when they reached Baitalpur road, and the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 04 8377 driving it rashly and negligently dashed the Minidor and the deceased died during the course of treatment at CIMS, Bilaspur. The claimants are the mother, father, brother & minor sister of the deceased. They pleaded that the age of the deceased was 23 years at the time of the accident and he was a vegetable vendor and was earning Rs. 7000/- per month. The claimants claimed a total of Rs. 14,00,000/- as compensation. Insurance Company/respondent No. 3 filed its reply and took a plea that at the time of the accident, the driver did not have a valid driving license and was being driven in breach of the insurance policy. 3. Learned tribunal framed issues and held that the deceased died on 3 account of the accident on 13.01.2010. It is further held that the age of the deceased was 19 years according to the P.M. report and the insurer could not prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of the insurance policy. The learned tribunal awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,98,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the application till its realization. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at the lower side. He would further submit that the deceased was earning Rs. 300/- to Rs.400/- per day which makes the monthly income of the deceased around Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 12000/-. Thus, the notional income which has been accepted by the tribunal at Rs. 3000/- per month is not proper. He would also submit that the learned tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of future prospects for quantifying the compensation. He would contend that the learned tribunal has found the age of the deceased to be 19 years and applied a multiplier of 16. Thus, he would pray for the enhancement of the compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the award passed by the learned tribunal is just and proper and the same does not require any interference. They would further submit that the learned tribunal has taken into account the overall factual matrix of the case, the age of the deceased and the nature of work being performed by the deceased. They would pray for the dismissal of the instant appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 4 7. Admittedly, the accident took place on 13.01.2010 and Dev Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. The age of the deceased is considered by the tribunal as 19 years as per the postmortem report. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a vegetable vendor. A perusal of the findings recorded by the learned tribunal would reveal that the monthly income of the deceased was considered to be Rs. 3000/- whereas the minimum wages payable to a laborer or vendor in the year 2010 was around Rs. 4,500/- and thus, in the opinion of this Court, the learned tribunal calculated the monthly income of deceased on the lower side. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is hereby enhanced from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4,500/-. The impugned award would further reveal that the compensation for the loss of consortium has not been awarded to the parents of the deceased whereas, according to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, reported in AIR OnLine SCC 1249, the claimants would be entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium. 8. The Hon’ble Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 has considered a multiplier of 18 for the persons who are aged between 15-25 years, whereas, in the present case, the learned tribunal has considered the multiplier of 16 which is erroneous. Therefore, the multiplier is hereby enhanced from 16 to 18. Likewise, the tribunal also erred inasmuch as in not taking into account the future prospects while quantifying the compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi(2017), 16 SCC 680 has considered 40% towards the loss of future prospects for the non-salaried persons who are aged between 0-39 years. Therefore, in the 5 present case, the applicable percentage of future prospects would be 40%. 9. Further, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellants are also entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate in place of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as awarded by the learned tribunal towards the funeral expenses and loss of estate. 10. However, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/2nd towards the personal expenses of the deceased as he was unmarried. Therefore, under this head, there is no scope for interference. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation payable to the claimants is hereby re-visited as under:- Sr. No. Particular Awarded by the Court 1. Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 4,500/- 2. Annual Income Rs. 54,000/- 3. Multiplier of 18 applied Rs. 9,72,000/- 4. Future Prospects @ 40% Rs. 3,88,800/- 5. Deduction towards personal expenses @ 1/2 Rs. 6,80,400/- 6. Total Loss of Income Rs. 6,80,400/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,60,000/- (4 x 40,000) 8. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- 9. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- 10. Total Rs. 8,70,400/- 11. Amount awarded by the Rs. 2,98,000/- 6 Tribunal 12 Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 5,72,400/- 12. For the foregoing reasons, the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,98,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 8,70,400/-. Hence, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5 ,72,400 /- . The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 13. The respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With regard to the interest part, there has been a considerable delay in filing this appeal; thus, the interest should not be admissible for the period of delay which is 1169 days. The rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant