1 2025:CGHC:57885 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 663 of 2018 1 - Smt. Sulochana Panariya Wd/o Late Manmohan Panariya Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Ekataguda Parchanpal Chowki Bastar District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Miss Kshipra D/o Late Mnmohan Panariya Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Ekataguda Parchanpal Chowki Bastar District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Miss Deepashikha D/o Late Manmohan Panariya Aged About 17 Years Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sulochana Panariya (Mother) R/o Village Ekataguda Parchanpal Chowki Bastar District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Miss Falguni D/o Late Manmohan Panariya Aged About 15 Years Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sulochana Panariya (Mother) R/o Village Ekataguda Parchanpal Chowki Bastar District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Master Yakub S/o Late Manmohan Panariya Aged About 2 Years Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sulochana Panariya (Mother) R/o Village Ekataguda Parchanpal Chowki Bastar District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 1 - Leban Patel S/o Late Lachhindar Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bakawand Post Bakawand District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s. D.V. Project Ltd. Through Sandeep Barya S/o R.C. Barya, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ballabh Nagar Ring Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Village Main Road Balenga P.S. Bhanpuri District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Laxman Avenue Medical College Road Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (27.11.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar District Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.62/2017 whereby a compensation of Rs.20,94,000/- with interest @ 09% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the appellants, being the widow, daughters, and son of the deceased Manmohan Panariya, are his legal heirs, while the respondents are respectively the owner, driver, and insurer of the offending pickup truck bearing registration No. CG-12/AL/5738 involved in the accident. On 3 26.12.2016, when the deceased was returning home on his bicycle and had reached near the I.T.I., the said vehicle, driven by Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit him, causing grievous injuries that resulted in his instantaneous death. The incident was reported to the concerned police station, whereupon a criminal case was registered against Respondent No.1 and a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. At the time of the accident, the deceased, though pleaded to be 50 years old, was found to be 55 years, one month, and 21 days of age, and was practising as an Advocate with an annual professional income of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in addition to earning approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month from agricultural activities, upon which his entire family was dependent. Due to his untimely accidental death, the appellants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.). The respondents, upon service of notice, appeared and contested the claim. The Claims Tribunal, after framing four issues, recording evidence, and considering the material on record, passed an award dated 30.01.2018 granting compensation of Rs. 9,06,000/-, a copy of which is filed herewith. 3. When the claim application for compensation was filed by the present appellants/claimants of deceased before the Claims Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of the alleged vehicle, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.5000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 55 years and the claimants are the parents, children and sister of the deceased 4 and the deduction was ¼th towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.15,000/- total income would be Rs.45,000/- and Rs.50,000/- from agriculture income total annual income would be Rs.95,000/-. After applying multiplier of 8, the total loss of dependency calculated to Rs. 8,36,000/-. The Tribunal on other heads Rs.70,000/- has been calculated and awarded total compensation of Rs.9,06,000/- with interest @ 9% 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. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in disbelieving the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, who were duly examined in support of their pleadings. The rejection of their statements amounts to a failure in appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospect of the deceased. In light of the precedents set by this Hon’ble Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others 1 . It ought to have considered that the deceased left behind wife, daughters and son making a total of five dependents. The findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside. The Tribunal’s conclusions run contrary to the documentary evidence and oral testimony on record, reflecting a failure to properly consider the facts in their correct perspective. In light of the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 above, the appellants respectfully pray that the impugned award be set aside and the claim be enhanced as per the submissions made herein. 5. No representation was made on behalf of Driver-cum-Owner. 6. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent Insurance Company that in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal requires no interference of this Court and no further enhancement is required to be made, therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed. 7. I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. 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. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.9,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, therefore, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate that the trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the 6 deceased, at the relevant time of accident. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.60,000/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra). 11. The deceased was aged about 32 years and was married and the claimants are the parents and children of the deceased so in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , 2 and Pranay Sethi (supra), deduction towards personal expenses would be 25% which comes to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.60,000/-/4 = Rs.15,000/-), the annual income comes to Rs.45,000/- + Rs.50,000 (from agriculture income) = Rs.95,000/- . Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 8 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.8,36,000/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years), for funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years) and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, 3 the claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/- (10% increase in every three years) each i.e. Rs.2,40,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,12,000/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors 4 , this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- Sn. Heads Calculation 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 4 (2011) 1 SCC 343 7 01 Loss of Dependency Rs. 8,36,000/- 02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 03 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs.48,000/- x 5 Rs. 2,40,000/- Total Rs.11,12,000/- 12. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.11,12,000/- from Rs.9,06,000/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,06,000/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (9% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 13. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 30.01.2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. 14. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena