1 2025:CGHC:52766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 504 of 2018 1 - Smt. Sukvaro Nishad W/o Late Manoj Kumar Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kara, Thana Urla District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Radhika D/o Late Manoj Kumar Nishad Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sukvaro Nishad, R/o Village Kara, Thana Urla District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Puja D/o Late Manoj Kumar Nishad Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sukvaro Nishad, R/o Village Kara, Thana Urla District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kumari Yamini D/o Late Manoj Kumar Nishad Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sukvaro Nishad, R/o Village Kara, Thana Urla District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kumari Gaytri D/o Late Manoj Kumar Nishad Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sukvaro Nishad, R/o Village Kara, Thana Urla District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Sahodra Nishad W/o Late Ganesh Nishad Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kara, Thana Urla District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 versus 1 - Umesh Singh S/o Shri Ramadhar Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o 15/29 Neharu Nagar (East) Bhilai Thana Supela District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle No. C.G.04/g./8015), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Meera Singh W/o Umesh Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o 15/29 Neharu Nagar (East) Bhilai Thana Supela District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle No. C.G.04/g./8015), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Address Near Railway Crossing Devendra Nager Road District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle No. C.G.04/g./8015), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 6.2.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Presiding Officer of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 295/2016 whereby an amount of Rs. 10,78,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded in 3 the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that the appellants/claimants, being the unfortunate widow, four minor daughters, and mother of the deceased Manoj Kumar Nishad, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, pleading inter alia that on 22.03.2016, at about 8:40 P.M., the deceased Manoj Kumar Nishad was waiting for an auto near Kabir Nagar Road, Ring Road No. 2, Iran Bazaar, Raipur, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kabir Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). At that time, respondent No. 1, while driving the offending vehicle, a truck bearing registration number C.G.04/G/8015, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, causing him grievous injuries which resulted in his death. A report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Kabir Nagar, Raipur, and a charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the truck under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 28/2016. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased was 32 years of age and was employed as a Supervisor with Govind Enterprises, Raipur, earning Rs. 16,000/- per month. Under various heads, the claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs. 44,50,000/- jointly and severally from the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle. The respondents No. 1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte before the learned Claims Tribunal. 4 Respondent No. 3, H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company, filed its written statement contending inter alia that the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that the compensation claimed was excessive. In support of their claim, the claimants examined three witnesses—Smt. Sukvaro Nishad (AW-1), Jani Nishad (AW-2), and Prem Dwivedi (AW-3)—who deposed regarding the occurrence of the accident and the income of the deceased. The insurance company also examined its witness but failed to establish any breach of policy conditions. The appellants submit that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. The appellants further challenge the exoneration of the insurance company from its liability. 3. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 60,000/- per annum. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 24,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 84,000/-. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 21,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 63,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 32 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife and children of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 10,08,000/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. 5 Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,78,000/- in favour of the wife and children of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,78,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 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. 6 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of 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. 16,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 6107/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 73,284/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 29,314/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,02,598/-. 11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 32 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 25,650/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 76,948/-. In view of judgment of 7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 12,31,168/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X6+10% +10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,88,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 15,55,168/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 12,31,168/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X6+10% +10%). Rs. 2,88,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 15,55,168/- 8 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 15,55,168/-. After deducting Rs. 10,78,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 4,77,168/-. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife and children of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 4,77,168/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena