1 2025:CGHC:57888 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1567 of 2018 1 - Smt. Manmoti Nishad W/o Late Ram Singh Nishad, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Village Barpali, P.S. Shyang, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajay, S/o Late Ram Singh, Aged About 22 Years R/o. Village Barpali, P.S. Shyang, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Sanjay, S/o Late Ram Singh, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Manmoti Nishad, R/o. Village Barpali, P.S. Shyang, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Minor Dinesh, S/o Late Ram Singh, Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Manmoti Nishad, R/o. Village Barpali, P.S. Shyang, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Minor Ku. Karisha, D/o. Ram Singh, Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Manmoti Nishad, R/o. Village Barpali, P.S. Shyang, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Irfan Ali S/o Usman Ali, Aged About 27 Years R/o. Village Barpali, P.S. Shyang, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh..........(Driver), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 2 - Prashant Sharma S/o R.S. Sharma, R/o. Lig-86, Sharda Vihar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (Chhattisgarh).........(Owner), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Office At Sada Complex, Taxi Stand, T.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.........(Insurer), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purnendra Kichariya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (27.11.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 22.01.2018 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba District (C.G.) in Claim Case No.30/2017 whereby a compensation of Rs.10,47,445/- with interest @ 07% 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 claimants are seeking compensation for the death of Ram Singh, who, as pleaded, died on the spot on 10.03.2017 at about 6:00 a.m. when, while proceeding on his bicycle towards the forest for collecting Mahua, he was hit from behind near Barpali on the main Tendukhar road by Bus No. CG-12-1950, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1. A compensation of Rs. 36,50,000/- was claimed. Respondents 3 No. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, filed their written statement denying the allegations and asserting that the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3, while respondent No. 3 (the insurer) contested the claim by alleging breach of policy conditions. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure A-1), awarding a lesser compensation of Rs. 10,47,445/-, aggrieving which the present appeal for enhancement has been preferred. 3. 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 4 above, the appellants respectfully pray that the impugned award be set aside and the claim be enhanced as per the submissions made herein. 4. No representation was made on behalf of Driver-cum-Owner. 5. 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. 6. I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 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.10,47,445/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Tribunal has correctly assessed the loss of dependency in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Since the 5 deceased was married and the claimants are his widow and children, the Tribunal has rightly applied the standard deduction towards personal expenses as prescribed in the aforesaid judgments. The selection of the appropriate multiplier is also in consonance with the settled law. Accordingly, the computation of the total loss of dependency at Rs. 9,77,445/- stands justified. 10. 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) each i.e. Rs.2,40,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,53,445/-. 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 Loss of Dependency Rs. 9,77,445/- 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.12,53,445/- 11. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to 2 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 3 (2011) 1 SCC 343 6 Rs.12,53,445/- from Rs.9,77,445/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,76,000/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (7% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 12. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 22.01.2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. 13. 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