1 2025:CGHC:54929 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1192 of 2018 1 - Kamla Dhiwar W/o Late Shri Basant Dhiwar, Aged About 50 Years (Wife Of Deceased), R/o Bhojpur, P.S. And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gopi Dhiwar, S/o Late Shri Basant Dhiwar Aged About 30 Years (Son Of Deceased) R/o Bhojpur, P.S. And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Goverdhan Dhiwar S/o Late Shri Basant Dhiwar, Aged About 23 Years (Son Of Deceased), R/o Bhojpur, P.S. And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Pushpa Dhiwar D/o Late Shri Basant Dhiwar, Aged About 34 Years (Daughter Of Deceased) R/o Bhojpur, P.S. And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Yamini Dhiwar D/o Late Shri Basant Dhiwar Aged About 32 Years (Daughter Of Deceased) R/o Bhojpur, P.S. And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Durgesh Shriwas S/o Kedarnath Shriwas Aged About 45 Years R/o Shiv Nagar Champa P.S. And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rupam Khamroi, S/o Tapan Khamroi, Aged About 24 Years R/o New Shankar Nagar, Indira Gali, Dangadipar, Raigarh P.S. Kotwali Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District- Janjgir – Champa (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 85/2016 whereby an amount of Rs. 8,12,500/- has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present claim petition, are that on 22.04.2016, at approximately 3:15 p.m., the deceased Basant Dhiwar was travelling from Champa to Naila in the newly purchased offending vehicle, an auto-rickshaw (black colour), bearing Chassis No. WA08584 and Engine No. GA26911. When the vehicle reached near S.D. Palace, Janjgir, the auto, driven by respondent No. 1, collided with a motorcycle coming from the opposite direction (from Janjgir side). Due to the impact of the collision, the deceased, who was seated inside the auto, sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The appellants/claimants thereafter filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 23,45,400/- before the learned Claims Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 (driver) filed his written statement denying liability, contending that he was not driving the auto at the time of the accident; rather, it was the deceased himself who 3 allegedly drove the vehicle, lost control, and caused it to overturn, and further asserted that he was only travelling in the auto from Janjgir to Champa. Respondent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte throughout the proceedings. Respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, contested the claim by disputing the income of the deceased and asserting that the insurance policy commenced only at 15:50 p.m. on 22.04.2016, whereas the accident occurred earlier that day at 15:15 p.m., and the FIR was lodged at 15:20 p.m., thereby indicating that the insurance policy was not in force at the time of the accident. The insurer further claimed that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, constituting a violation of policy conditions and relieving the insurer of liability. During trial, the claimants examined two witnesses in support of their case, while respondent No. 1 entered the witness box on his own behalf, and respondent No. 3 examined Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,12,500/- as compensation in favour of the appellants/claimants. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the awarded amount, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate considering the facts and circumstances of the case and suffers from serious legal infirmities. It is contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the 4 deceased at Rs. 7,500/-, despite sufficient material indicating that his actual income was Rs. 9,000/- per month, and such erroneous appreciation has resulted in a substantially lower computation of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that although the Tribunal, while determining Issue No. 3, undertook a detailed discussion on the alleged breach of policy conditions and the dispute regarding the effective commencement of the insurance policy, particularly the difference between the policy issuance time (15:50 hours) and the time of accident (15:15 hours), the Tribunal ultimately concluded, on the basis of the findings recorded in paragraph 28 of the award and the admission made during the cross-examination of the Insurance Company’s Administrative Officer, that the liability indeed rested upon the Insurance Company. However, despite fastening liability on the insurer, the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future prospects of the deceased, even though the deceased had two unmarried daughters who remain dependent and continue to reside in the joint family, thereby placing financial responsibility upon him. It is further submitted that the omission to grant future prospects amounts to a grave error, rendering the compensation unjust and contrary to settled principles of law. In view of these circumstances, it is urged that the income of the deceased ought to be rightly assessed at Rs. 9,000/- per month, and an appropriate enhancement towards future prospects be granted. 4. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for 5 respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company that insurer is not liable to satisfy the award, as the policy was not in force at the time of the accident and there was clear violation of policy conditions, including absence of a valid and effective driving licence. It is further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record, and the compensation awarded is just, fair, and requires no enhancement. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful examination of the evidence and findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the assessment of compensation requires appropriate modification. With respect to the quantum of compensation, it is evident that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future prospects, despite the deceased being in 6 the age bracket where such addition is permissible in accordance with settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Considering the nature of the employment and the age of the deceased an addition of 10% towards future prospects is justified and required to be made to his established income. Accordingly, the annual income after adding 10% towards future prospects would come to Rs. 99,000/- (Rs. 90,000 + Rs. 9,000). The income, after applying multiplier of 11, would come to Rs. 10,89,000/- (Rs. 99,000 x 11). A deduction of 1/4th is to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 8,16,750/-. 9. 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). The claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X5+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,40,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 10,92,750/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 8,16,750/- 04 Towards consortium along with increase of 10% in every three years Rs. 2,40,000/- 7 (40,000X5+10%+10%). 05 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 06 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 10,92,750/- 10. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 10,92,750/-. After deducting Rs. 8,12,500/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,80,250/-. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,80,250/- 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 Shayna