1 2025:CGHC:55620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1720 of 2019 1 - Om Prakash Kashyap S/o Jay Ratan Kashyap Aged About 29 Years R/o Infront Of Naila Chowki, Police Chowki, Naila, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh............(Driver), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Darash Ram Kashyap S/o Sampat Ram Kashyap, R/o Naila Darripara, Police Chowki, Naila, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh..........(Owner), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Deendayal Shriwash S/o Bhagwat Prasad Aged About 45 Years R/o Tendubhata, Police Chowki Naila, Tahsil Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramin Bai W/o Dindayal Shriwash Aged About 40 Years R/o Tendubhata, Police Chowki Naila, Tahsil Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri Utkarsh Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.11.2025 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The appellants/ driver and owner have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the liability part against the award passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Janjgir – Champa in Claim Case No.22 of 2019 dated 19.8.2019 whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.3,32,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Dayanand Shriwas. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 18.1.2019 at about 4:45 pm, the deceased Dayanand was going to Naila Railway Station on his motorcycle alongwith his uncle. At the same time, the driver of the offending Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos.C.G.13/L/5764 & C.G./11/D/1130, by driving rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. The claimants filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act inter alia on the ground that the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of accident and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The appellants filed their reply and denied the averments of the claim application. They pleaded that three persons were riding on the motorcycle and the deceased himself was negligent. It is also pleaded that the deceased had no valid driving license. The learned Tribunal framed issues; the parties led their evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the deceased, who was driving the motorbike himself was negligent. He would contend that the offending Tractor-Trolley was not involved in the accident and the deceased while driving the motorbike rashly and 3 negligently fell down and sustained injuries. He would further contend that three persons were riding on the motorcycle, due to which the driver/ deceased lost balance and fell down. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has not considered these aspects and has wrongly fastened liability upon the appellants. He would pray to allow this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. He would submit that a cross-appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. He would contend that as per FIR, other documents and the evidence led by the claimants, it is apparent that the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle and his maternal uncle was the pillion rider. He would contend that according to the contents of FIR and the evidence of Rajendra Shriwas (AW-2), the offending Tractor- Trolley dashed the motorcycle of the deceased consequently, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- per month, which is at lower side. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 14 looking to the age of parents of the deceased, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Bhanu Shali vs. National Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation under the conventional heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 4 6. With regard to enhancement of compensation, the age of the deceased was 18 years and was a bachelor. The learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, which is on the lower side. In the absence of direct evidence, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix prevalent in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. According to the minimum wages matrix, the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in January, 2019 was Rs.8,660/- and the learned Tribunal ought to have considered this amount for computing the compensation. Learned Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 18 looking to the age of the deceased. The deduction of ½ towards personal expenses is proper. Learned Tribunal has not awarded future prospects, which should be 40%. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the compensation requires reconsideration. 7. With regard to contention made by counsel for the appellants, FIR (Ex.A/1) would show that it was registered on 18.1.2019 i.e. on the date of accident, wherein the involvement of the offending Tractor- Trolley is specifically mentioned. Dehati nalishi (Ex.A/3) was also recorded on 18.1.2019 at about 19:15 hours by one Madhav Shriwas, who stated that the motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley. Thus, it can be safely held that the offending Tractor-Trolley was involved in the accident. 8. With regard to contention made by counsel for the appellants that three persons were riding on the motorcycle, it may amount to an offence according to the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules; however, on that ground alone, the driver and owner cannot be exonerated from their liability. 5 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 3,000 x12 = Rs. 36,000/- Rs. 8,660 x 12 = Rs. 1,03,920/- 2. Future Prospect ---- 40% - 41,568/- (1,03,920 + 41,568 = 1,45,488/-) 3. Deduction (-) 50% (18,000/-) (36,000 – 18,000 = 18,000/- (-) 50% (72,744/-) (Rs.1,45,488-72,744) = Rs. 72,744/- 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = Rs. (18,000 x 14 = 2,52,000/-) (x) 18 = Rs. (72,744 x 18 = 13,09,392/-) 5. Love and Affection Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 6. Loss of consortium ---- Rs.40,000/- x 2 = 80,000/- 6. Loss of Estate Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs. 3,32,000/- Rs. 14,39,392/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,32,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.14,39,392/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,32,000/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.11,07,392/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 6 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the appeal preferred by the driver and owner is hereby dismissed and the cross- appeal preferred by the claimants is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi