1 2025:CGHC:53074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1248 of 2018 1 - The Branch Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited, Through, Branch Manager, Branch Office, 13 Meenu Complex, Kosabadi, Korba, Taha Complex Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Non - Applicant No. 3) ( Insurer Of Vehicle Capsule Bearing Registration No. Cg/07/c/5514), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Umashankar S/o Ganga Krishna Aged About 66 Years R/o Purani Basti, Masturi Post Office And Police Station - Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Vidyadevi W/o Umashankar Aged About 62 Years R/o Purani Basti, Masturi Post Office And Police Station - Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Rajni Tiwari W/o Late Manoj Kumar Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o Purani Basti, Masturi Post Office And Police Station - Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Love Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Aged About 10 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rajni Tiwari W/o Late Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Respondent No. 3 , R/o Purani Basti, Masturi Post Office And Police Station - Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nidhi Tiwari D/o Late Manoj Kumar Tiwari Aged About 8 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rajni Tiwari W/o RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Late Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Respondent No. 3 , R/o Purani Basti, Masturi Post Office And Police Station - Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Pramod Tiwari S/o Umashankar Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o Purani Basti, Masturi Post Office And Police Station - Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Ravindra Kumar S/o Mahesh Kumar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sonsari, Post Office And Police Station - Mumlmula, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Vehicle Capsule Bearing Registration No. Cg/07/c/ 5514), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Santosh Jain , S/o Ashil Jain, Aged About 42 Years R/o Ashok Vastra Bhandar, Main Road, Korba , District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Registered Owner Of Vehicle Capsule Bearing Registration No. Cg/07/c/ 5514), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 6 : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate. For Respondents No. 7 & 8 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/10/2025 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated passed by 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 26.10.2017, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 17,56,660/- with interest @ 8.5% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein. 3 2. The claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 6 represented by Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, deceased Manoj Kumar Tiwari, aged about 40 years, was working as an auto driver and died in a motor accident on 18.02.2016 when his auto was dashed by another vehicle on the road. The legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim before the Tribunal against the vehicle (Capsule) bearing registration no. CG-07-C-5514 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), which was being driven by respondent no. 7 at the time of the accident. The claimants/respondents no. 1 to 6, being the parents, wife, children, and brother of the deceased, preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation on account of his death. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 18.02.2016 at about 11:15 p.m., while the deceased was returning home to Masturi after dropping passengers in his auto and had reached near Jondhar Chowk, Masturi, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), the driver of the offending vehicle, driving in a rash and negligent manner, dashed into the auto of the deceased, causing severe injuries that led to his death during treatment. A report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Masturi against respondent no. 7. At the time of the accident, respondents no. 7 and 8 were the 4 driver and registered owner, respectively, of the offending vehicle, which was duly insured with the appellant insurance company. The insurance company contended that the claimants had claimed an unreasonable and unjustified amount and therefore it was not liable to pay any compensation. Respondents no. 7 and 8 remained ex parte and did not file any written statement before the Tribunal. After framing five issues based on the pleadings and recording evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 26.10.2017, holding the appellant insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 17,56,660/- to the claimants. The appellant insurance company deposited Rs. 25,000/- as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for filing the appeal. The appellant’s application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed on 17.07.2017. The compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, and passed without proper appreciation of facts, evidence, and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, in a hasty manner and without following due process of law, passed the impugned award against the appellant without properly determining whether the appellant was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. He further submits that the award suffers from patent illegality and 5 apparent error on the face of the record. He further submits that the learned Tribunal committed a gross error in law by failing to appreciate the submissions made by the appellant regarding the income of the deceased and other relevant aspects of the quantum of compensation, resulting in an excessive and unjustified award. He further submitts that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased or other material particulars, yet the Tribunal arbitrarily assessed the income on the higher side. He further submits that the learned Tribunal also erred in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd, despite there being only three dependents of the deceased, contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further submits that the deceased himself was negligent and contributed to the accident by his own rash and negligent driving, and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have held at least 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal also wrongly applied an excessive multiplier and awarded disproportionately high amounts under various conventional heads without any cogent or corroborative evidence, making the award wholly unsustainable in law. The learned Tribunal further ignored the documents and evidence produced by the appellant and passed the award in undue haste. Hence, the impugned award is bad in law, erroneous, excessive, and contrary to the settled principles of law, and 6 therefore, the same deserves to be set aside, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,56,660/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and upon careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed a well- reasoned and justified award after due appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material placed on record. The Tribunal rightly held the appellant/Insurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The findings recorded by the Tribunal do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court. The appellant/Insurance Company has failed to demonstrate any substantial ground to justify setting aside or modification of the impugned award. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. 7 Cross-Objection/Appeal 9. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,716/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,52,592/- per annum. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 38,148/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 1,14,444/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 40 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, mother, children and brother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 17,16,660/-. Further Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 17,56,660/- in favour of the wife, mother, children and brother of the deceased with interest @ 8.5% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this cross objection/appeal for enhancement. 10. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,56,660/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She 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. 11. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for the appellant/insurance company that in the facts and 8 circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 12. None for respondent Nos. 7 & 8 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 12,716/- per month which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 12,716/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,52,592/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 38,148/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,90,740/-. 9 17. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 40 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, mother, children and brother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 47,685/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,43,055/-. 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. 21,45,825/-. 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, mother, children and brother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 24,69,825/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 21,45,825/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every Rs. 2,88,000/- 10 three years (40,000X6+10% +10%). 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. 24,69,825/- 18. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 24,69,825/-. After deducting Rs. 17,56,660/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,13,165/-. 19. In the result, the cross appeal filed by respondents No. 1 to 6 is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, mother, children and brother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,13,165/- 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 Raghu Jat