1 2025:CGHC:52522 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1531 of 2017 1 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Kevramunda Ward, Near Jhankar Chinema, Jagdalpur, Post Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Pin 494001 .............Insurance Policy No. 45120431120200003481 Upto From Dated 10.03.2013 To 09.03.2014, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Aayi Danmal Soni S/o Binjraj Soni, Aged About 50 Years R/o Gidam, Bazarpara, Tehsil And Post Gidam, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sudha Soni W/o Aai Danamal Soni, Aged About 48 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Gidam, Bazarpara, Tehsil And Post Gidam, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shaleban Bhoi S/o Late Ramchandra Bhoi, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Singhanpur Saraipali Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Hudko Colony Aavrabhata, Post Aavrabhata, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh .............Driver Of Vehicle D.L.No.S. 1403/ D.W.D./10, Dated 03.07.2010 To 02.07.2030 Dantewada R.T.O., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 4 - Cicrit Heart Hospital, Katiar Ras, Dantewada, Through Administrator ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 S.H.Hospital, D.R. Merli Jens, D./o. P.C.Chako, S.H.Convent/ Hospital, Katiar Ras, Post And Tehsil Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ..............Registered Owner Of Vehicle Mahindra And Mahindra Ambulance, Registered No. C.G.18 G.0104, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (28.10.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 29.07.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, District South Bastar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 10/2014 whereby a compensation of Rs.8,44,000/- with interest @ 11% 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 brief facts of the case, as set forth by the applicants, are that the deceased Yogesh Kumar Soni was the son of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 is his mother. On 30.05.2013, the deceased, Yogesh Kumar Soni, was returning home on his Scooty vehicle bearing registration number CG–07–LW–1217 along with his friend Bablu alias Deepak Soni. At about 8:45 a.m., when they reached near the house of Tilak Soni on the Jagdalpur–Geedam Highway, the Respondent No. 3, while driving a Mahindra & Mahindra Ambulance bearing registration number CG–18–G–0104, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and struck the Scooty of the deceased. As a result of the said 3 collision, both Yogesh Kumar Soni and Bablu alias Deepak Soni sustained grievous injuries. During the course of treatment at the District Hospital, Jagdalpur, the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the same day. The offending vehicle, bearing registration number CG– 18–G–0104, was owned by Respondent No.3 and was duly insured with the appellant insurance company, the insurance company, on the date of the incident. In connection with the said accident, Crime No. 40/2013 was registered at Police Station Geedam, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against Respondent No.3. The deceased, Yogesh Kumar Soni, was 20 years of age at the time of his death and was assisting his father, Shri Idanmal Soni, in his gold and silver ornaments shop at Geedam. The deceased was actively engaged in making and selling gold ornaments and used to visit nearby weekly markets for business purposes. From such occupation, the deceased was earning approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. Due to the untimely death of their son, the applicants have suffered loss of dependency, mental agony, and have been deprived of the love, affection, and support of their deceased son. They have also incurred expenses towards his cremation and related rituals. Hence, the applicants have claimed a total compensation of Rs.24,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs Ten Thousand only) under various heads, to be recovered jointly or severally from the respondents, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 4 3. Learned counsel for the appellant–insurance company contended that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening entire liability upon the insurer without appreciating the facts and evidence on record. It was submitted that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of both drivers, as the deceased Yogesh Kumar Soni, who was himself driving the Scooty bearing No. CG–07–LW–1217, had collided with the Ambulance bearing No. CG–18–G–0104; therefore, liability ought to have been apportioned equally between both vehicles. Learned counsel further argued that the Ambulance was being driven by Respondent No. 3, Shaleban, without a valid and effective driving licence, and also without a valid permit and fitness certificate, which amounts to a fundamental breach of policy conditions, thereby absolving the insurer from liability. It was submitted that as per the Registration Certificate and Gazette Notification dated 30.05.1991, the said ambulance is a transport vehicle, and under Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a licence for driving such vehicle must be renewed every three years; however, the driver possessed only a long-term LMV licence valid for twenty years, which did not authorize him to drive a transport vehicle. The Tribunal, it was urged, erred in holding that the ambulance was not a transport vehicle and further awarded an excessive rate of interest at 11% per annum, which ought reasonably to be reduced to 6% per annum. Additionally, the learned Tribunal has also wrongly applied the future prospects at 50%, whereas, as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the applicable rate of future prospects should be 40% only, considering that the deceased was aged 5 about 20 years at the time of the accident. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the impugned award dated 29.07.2017, passed in Claim Case No. 10/2014, be set aside, and the appellant–insurance company be exonerated from liability to pay compensation, with a direction for reimbursement of any amount already deposited in compliance with the award. 4. No representation was made on behalf of respondents. 5. I Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. 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. 7. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.7,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 8. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.4500/- per month, and there is no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, Therefore, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate that the income of the deceased is Rs.4,943/-, at the relevant time of accident. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.59,316/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra). 6 9. The deceased was aged about 20 years and was not married and the claimants are the parents and sisters 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 , 1 and Pranay Sethi (supra), after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.59,316/- + Rs.23,726/- (Rs.59,31/6/- + 40/100 = Rs.83,042/-), deduction towards personal expenses would be 50% which comes to Rs.41,521/- (Rs.83,042/- / 2 = Rs.41,521/-), the annual income comes to Rs.41,521/-. Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 18 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.7,47,382/-. 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, 2 the claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium Rs.48,000/- (10% increase in every three years) i.e. Rs.96,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,31,382/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors 3 , this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- Sn. Heads Calculation 01 Income of the Deceased Rs.59,316/- (Rs.4,943/- x 12) 02 Future Prospect 40% Rs.23,726/- (Rs.59,316/- x 40%) 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 3 (2011) 1 SCC 343 7 03 Deduction ½ Rs.41,521/- (Rs.83,042/- - 50%) 04 Total Income of the Deceased Rs.41,521/- (Rs.83,042/- – Rs.41,521/-), 05 Multiplier of 18 Rs.7,47,381/- (Rs.41,521 x 18) 06 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 07 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 08 Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs.48,000/- x 2 Rs. 96,000/- Total Rs.8,31,382/- 10. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.8,31,382/- from Rs.7,74,000/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.57,382/-, which shall carry interest @ 8% per annum (reduced from 11% per annum) from the date of claim petition till realization. 11. As a result, the appeals are allowed in part. The award dated 29.07.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena