1 2025:CGHC:52519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 851 of 2017 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, G.E.Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.11 A 3973, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Anita Nishad Wd/o Late Dukaluram, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Otebandh, P.S. Krhi Bazar, District Balauda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Ritu Nishad D/o Late Dukaluram, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Anita Nishad Respondent No.1 R/o Village Otebandh, P.S. Krhi Bazar, District Balauda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jitendra Nishad S/o Late Dukaluram, Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Anita Nishad Respondent No.1 R/o Village Otebandh, P.S. Krhi Bazar, District Balauda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Shitala Nishad D/o Late Dukaluram, Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Anita Nishad Respondent No.1 R/o Village Otebandh, P.S. Krhi Bazar, District Balauda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Smt. Binda Nishad Wd/o Late Shivcharan, Aged About 55 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Anita Nishad Respondent No.1 R/o Village Otebandh, P.S. Krhi Bazar, District Balauda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Awdhesh Kumar S/o Jagannath Rai, R/o Japurabad, P.S. Lalganj, District Vaishali Bihar, Hall Mukam- Near Manindra Motors, Transport Nagar Khamtarai, P.S. Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of Truck No. C.G.11 A 3973, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Varun Kapur S/o Arun Kapur, R/o Anupam Nagar Shankar Nagar, Raipur, P.S. Pandari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of Truck No. C.G.11 A 3973, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 5 : Ms. Mamta Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents No. 6 to 7 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/10/2025 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 19.1.2017 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 55/2013, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,45,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 herein. 3 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being plied without any valid permit, thereby constituting a clear violation of statutory provisions. It is further contended that the Tribunal has incorrectly assessed the future prospects of the deceased by calculating the same at 50%, which, according to the learned counsel, is contrary to the settled principles of law. Having regard to the age of the deceased, it is submitted that the appropriate addition towards future prospects should have been restricted to 40% only. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly and judiciously assessed the evidence on record and awarded just and proper compensation, which calls for no interference by this Hon’ble Court. She further contends that the grounds urged by the insurance company are untenable in law and devoid of merit, as the findings recorded by the Tribunal are well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts, and in consonance with the settled legal principles governing motor accident compensation claims. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the bare perusal of the record, it seems that so far as contention raised by the insurance company regarding permit is concerned it has not been duly established before the tribunal. Though witnesses have been examined but the insurance 4 company has failed to prove the factum of lack of permit of the vehicle accordingly this ground is not tenable and entertainable, however, so far as calculation of future prospect is concerned learned counsel for the insurance company is right while submitting that the future prospect should be 40% instead of 50%. 6. 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. 8,000/- per month which appears to be proper on the date of accident. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 8,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 96,000/- 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. 38,400/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,34,400/-. 7. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 38 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 33,600/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,00,800/-. 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 5 of dependency works out to Rs. 15,12,000/-. 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. (40,000X5+10% +10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,40,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 17,88,000/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 15,12,000/- 2 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X5+10% +10%). Rs. 2,40,000/- 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. 17,88,000/- 8. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.18,45,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs.17,88,000/-. The claimants are entitled to get Rs.17,88,000/- in place of Rs.18,45,000/-. The 6 award is modified to the above extent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat