1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1641 of 2018 1 - Balram S/o Teju Pahadi Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Kathrapara, P.S. Pasta, District Balrampur, Presently Residing At Near Takiya Road, Near Nala, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sagani Korba W/o Balram, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kathrapara, P.S. Pasta, District Balrampur, Presently Residing At Near Takiya Road, Near Nala, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Roop Sai Paikara S/o Goverdhan Paikara Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pasta, P.S. Pasta Rajpur, District Balrampur (Chhattisgarh)..........(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-15-Zb-0407), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajendra Prasad Gupta S/o Sudama Prasad Gupta, Aged About 46 Years R/o Lurgi, P.S. And Tahsil And District Balrampur RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 (Chhattisgarh)..........(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-15-Zb-0407), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Ambikapur Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh..........(Insurance Company Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-15-Zb-0407), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1642 of 2018 1 - Mangalu S/o Mangalsai Agariya Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Saraeedih, P.O. Durgapur, P.S. Shankargadh, Presently Residing At Near Pratappur Barrier, West To Hanuman Mandir, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Fulmatiya W/o Mangalu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Saraeedih, P.O. Durgapur, P.S. Shankargadh, Presently Residing At Near Pratappur Barrier, West To Hanuman Mandir, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Roop Sai Paikara S/o Goverdhan Paikara, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pasta, P.S. Rajpur, District Balrampur (Chhattisgarh)........... (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-15-Zb-0407), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajendra Prasad Gupta, S/o Sudama Prasad Gupta, Aged About 46 Years R/o Lurgi, P.S. And Tahsil And District Balrampur 3 Chhattisgarh............(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-15-Zb-0407), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Ambikapur Chowk, Ambikapur Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh............ (Insurance Company Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-15-Zb-0407), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1639 of 2018 1 - Lalluram S/o Jayram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Saraeedih, P.O.- Durgapur, P.S.- Shankargadh, Presently Residing At Near Pratappur Barrier, West To Hanuman Mandir, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Manisha D/o Lalluram Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Their Fathers, R/o Village- Saraeedih, P.O.- Durgapur, P.S.- Shankargadh, Presently Residing At Near Pratappur Barrier, West To Hanuman Mandir, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajesh S/o Lalluram Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Their Fathers, R/o Village- Saraeedih, P.O.- Durgapur, P.S.- Shankargadh, Presently Residing At Near Pratappur Barrier, West To Hanuman Mandir, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Sandhya D/o Lalluram Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Their Fathers, R/o Village- Saraeedih, P.O.- Durgapur, P.S.- 4 Shankargadh, Presently Residing At Near Pratappur Barrier, West To Hanuman Mandir, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Roop Sai Paikara S/o Goverdhan Paikara Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pasta, P.S. Rajpur, District- Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.....(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-15-Zb-0407), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajendra Prasad Gupta S/o Sudama Prasad Gupta Aged About 46 Years R/o Lurgi, P.S. Tahsil And District- Balrampur, Chhattisgarh....... (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-15-Zb-0407), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgah......(Insurance Company Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-15-Zb-0407), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/11/2025 5 1. All the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 21.8.2018 has been passed. MAC Nos. 1641/2018, 1639/2018 and 1642/2018 are claimants’ appeal against the award dated 21.8.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Cases No. 181/2017, 151/2017 and 150/2017 respectively. MAC No. 1641/2018 2. Brief facts of the cases, are that on 02.05.2015 at about 08:30 p.m., the deceased Smt. Prabha and other deceased persons were travelling from Village Pasta to Tatapani as labourers, carrying marriage ceremonial goods in a pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. CG-15-26-0407. During the journey, on the request of the deceased to stop the vehicle for urination, the driver parked it on the roadside. While deceased Ku. Rekha and others had alighted and were proceeding to urinate, they were suddenly hit and crushed by the wheels of a passing truck, resulting in their instantaneous death within the jurisdiction of Police Station Pasta. Since the deceased persons were travelling in the aforesaid pick-up vehicle, the claim was sought against it. The said offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2, driven by respondent No. 1, and duly insured with respondent No. 3. The claimants asserted that the deceased was earning her livelihood through fish and hotel business, along with other sources of income, and accordingly filed a claim petition 6 seeking compensation of Rs. 11,20,000/-. However, the Learned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 5,35,334/-, prompting the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. This appeal has been preferred within the prescribed period of limitation and, therefore, suffers from no delay. 3. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Based on the Second Scheduled of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the total loss of dependency work out as Rs. 5,33,334/-. Further Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,35,334/- in favour of the parents of the deceased with interest @ 6% 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. 5,35,334/- 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. 7 6. From the office report it shows that the respondents No. 1 & 2 were remain unserved, however, in the other connected matters they were served as such they were having knowledge about the pendency of these appeals. 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. 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.The Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- per annum which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/-. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 16,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 56,000/-. 11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 14 years 8 and the appellant/claimants are the parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 28,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 28,000/-. In view of judgment of 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 15, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 4,20,000/-. 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. (40,000X2+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 96,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. parents of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 5,52,000/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 4,20,000/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X2+10%+10%). Rs. 96,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along Rs. 18,000/- 9 with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 5,52,000/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 5,52,000/-. After deducting Rs. 5,35,334/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 16,666/-. 13. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 1641/2018) is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. parents of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 16,000/- 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. 14. The driver and owner are directed to deposit the amount of compensation decided by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. MAC No. 1639/2018 15.Brief facts of the cases, are that on 02.05.2015 at about 8:30 p.m., the deceased Smt. Prabha along with other deceased persons was traveling from Village Pasta to Tatapani as labourers, carrying marriage ceremonial goods in the offending vehicle (Pick-Up) 10 bearing registration number CG 15 ZB 0407. During the journey, on the request of the deceased to stop the vehicle for urination, the driver parked the vehicle on the roadside. While the deceased Smt. Prabha and others had alighted and were proceeding to urinate, they were dashed and crushed by the wheels of a passing truck, resulting in their instant death within the jurisdiction of Police Station Pasta. The claim was filed against the said offending vehicle solely on the ground that the deceased were traveling in it at the time of the incident. The offending vehicle was owned by Respondent No. 2, driven by Respondent No. 1, and was duly insured with Respondent No. 3. The claimants contended that the deceased was earning her livelihood through fish and hotel business, among other sources of income, and accordingly filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 19,09,800/-. However, the Learned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 4,02,000/-, which the appellants consider grossly inadequate. Hence, this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation, and it is filed within the prescribed limitation period without any delay. 16.The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Based on the Second Scheduled of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the total loss of dependency work out as Rs. 4,00,000/-. Further Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,02,000/- in favour of the husband and children of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its 11 realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 17.Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,02,000/- 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. 18.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. 19.From the office report it shows that the respondents No. 1 & 2 were remain unserved, however, in the other connected matters they were served as such they were having knowledge about the pendency of these appeals. 20.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 21.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. 12 22.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. 23.The Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- per annum which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/-. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 16,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 56,000/-. 24.Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 36 years and the appellant/claimants are the husband and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 14,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 42,000/-. In view of judgment of 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 15, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 6,30,000/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in 13 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. (40,000X4+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. husband and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 8,58,000/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 6,30,000/- 2 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X4+10%+10%). Rs. 1,92,000/- 3 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 4 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 8,58,000/- 25. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 8,58,000/-. After deducting Rs. 4,02,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 4,56,000/-. 26. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 1639/2018) is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. husband and children of the 14 deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 4,56,000/- 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. 27. The driver and owner are directed to deposit the amount of compensation decided by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. MAC No. 1642/2018 28.Brief facts of the cases, are that on 02.05.2015, at about 6:30 p.m., the deceased Smt. Jivanti and other deceased persons were travelling to Tatapani as labourers from Village Pasta, carrying marriage ceremonial goods in the offending vehicle (Pick-Up) bearing registration number CG 15 ZB 0407. When the deceased requested the driver to stop the vehicle for urination, he parked it by the roadside. While Smt. Prabha and others went to attend nature’s call, they were hit and crushed by the wheels of a passing truck, resulting in their instantaneous death within the jurisdiction of Police Station Pasta. The claim was made against the said Pick-Up vehicle solely on the ground that the deceased were travelling in it at the time of the incident. The offending vehicle was owned by Respondent No. 2, driven by Respondent No. 1, and duly insured with Respondent No. 3. Claiming that the deceased was earning through running a shop of eggs, fish, and bhajiya, along with other 15 sources of income, the claimants collectively filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 12,50,200/-, out of which only Rs. 5,08,667/- was awarded by the Learned Tribunal. Hence, this appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement of the awarded amount. The present appeal has been filed within the prescribed limitation period, and therefore, there is no delay in its filing. 29.The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Based on the Second Scheduled of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the total loss of dependency work out as Rs. 5,06,667/-. Further Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,08,667/- in favour of the husband and children of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 30.Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,08,667/- 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. 31.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 16 requires no further enhancement. 32.From the office report it shows that the respondents No. 1 & 2 were remain unserved, however, in the other connected matters they were served as such they were having knowledge about the pendency of these appeals. 33.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 34.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. 35. 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. 36.The Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- per annum which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/-. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 16,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 17 56,000/-. 37.Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 17 years and the appellant/claimants are the parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 28,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 28,000/-. In view of judgment of 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 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,04,000/-. 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. (40,000X2+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 96,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. parents of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 6,36,000/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,04,000/- 2 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every Rs. 96,000/- 18 three years (40,000X2+10% +10%). 3 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 4 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 6,36,000/- 38. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 6,36,000/-. After deducting Rs. 5,08,667/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,27,333/-. 39. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 1642/2018) is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. parents of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,27,333/- 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. 40. The driver and owner are directed to deposit the amount of compensation decided by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat