1 2025:CGHC:55619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 434 of 2021 United India Insurance Company Limited Micro-Office Shop No. 5, Ist Floor, G. S. Plaza, Raigarh Road, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh Through Its Authorised Authority, Deputy Manager, In Charge, T. P. Hub, United India Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor, Lic Building Magarpara Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Savita Bai Chouhan Wd/o Late Shobhit Chouhan Aged About 38 Years Caste Cheek, And R/o Village Dagbandhi, P. S. Tumla, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sunil Chouhan S/o Shobhit Chouhan Aged About 18 Years Caste Cheek, And R/o Village Dagbandhi, P. S. Tumla, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nipin Ram Chouhan S/o Late Shobhit Chouhan Aged About 16 Years Respondent No. 3 Is Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Savita Bai Chouhan Wd/o Late Shobhit Chouhan Respondent No. 01, Caste Cheek, And R/o Village Dagbandhi, P. S. Tumla, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tulsi Chouhan S/o Late Shobhit Chouhan Aged About 14 Years Respondent No. 4 Is Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Savita Bai Chouhan Wd/o Late Shobhit Chouhan Respondent No. 01, Caste Cheek, And R/o Village Dagbandhi, P. S. Tumla, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Divya Chouhan D/o Late Shobhit Chouhan Aged About 10 Years Respondent No. 5 Is Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Savita Bai Chouhan Wd/o Late Shobhit Chouhan Respondent No. 01, Caste Cheek, And R/o Village Dagbandhi, P. S. Tumla, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ku. Khulati Bai Chouhan D/o Late Shobhit Chouhan Aged About 7 Years Respondent No. 6 Is Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Savita Bai Chouhan Wd/o Late Shobhit Chouhan Respondent No. 01, Caste Cheek, And R/o Village Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Dagbandhi, P. S. Tumla, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Petrus Minj S/o Martin Minj Aged About 55 Years R/o Loyola House Kunkuri, P. S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh Present Address St. Xavier School Bandiyakhair Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 14/11/2025 1. The Insurance company has challenged the quantum part of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in Claim Case No. 3/2018, whereby the compensation of Rs. 12,78,000/- has been granted in favour of the claimant with interest @ 9 % per annum on account of death of Shobhit Chouhan. 2. Mr. Gupta, would submit that the deceased Shobhit Chouhan met with an accident on 17.01.2014 as he was dashed by motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-20-KK-3463. He would contend that the claimants who are wife and children of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, where they pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 35 years. He would further submit that the insurance company filed reply and denied the claim averments; the learned Tribunal framed issues and parties led evidence and thereafter award was passed. 3. Mr. Gupta would submit that number of claimants are 6, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased for his personal and living expenses but in the present case, the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/5th which is not in consonance with the 3 judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,78, 000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum. The insurance Company was directed to deposit the said amount within a period of one month and in default, the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 12 %. He would submit that such stipulation is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur & others (2004) 2 SCC 370 and thus, pray to modify the the award. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Chouhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellant and submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of the claim petition would show that that the claim case was fled by widow and five children of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of deduction in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) held as that deduction must be based on the number of dependents and fixed the standard that if the deceased leaves behind 2 to 3 dependents, there will be 1/3rd deduction of the income towards personal and living expenses; if the deceased leaves behind 4 to 6 dependents, there will be 1/4th deduction of the income; if the deceased leaves behind 7 or more dependents, there will be 1/5th deduction towards personal and living expenses; if the deceased was a bachelor, then there will be 50%, deduction because a bachelor is presumed to spend half of his income on himself and in case the mother is dependent 4 on his, she will be considered primary dependent. The relevant para – 30 is reproduced as under:- “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that-where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” 7. In the present case, the number of dependents are six, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased for his personal and living expenses but the learned Tribunal deducted 1/5th and such deduction is erroneous. 8. With regard to the interest part, in default of payment of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Keshav Bahadur (supra), has held that once discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal awarding simple interest, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement of compensation and no express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. The relevant para – 13 is reproduced as under:- “13. Though Section 110CC of the Act (corresponding to Section 171 of the New Act) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the same is meant to be exercised in cases where the claimant can claim the same as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for 5 retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. It is, therefore directed that the rate of interest as awarded by the High Court shall alone be applicable till payment, without the stipulation for higher rate of interest being enforced, in the manner directed by the Tribunal. ” 9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) and Keshav Bahadur (supra), the compensation is recomputed with regard to deduction part as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income 6,000 x 12 = 72,000 72,000 2. Deduction 1/5 = 72,000-14,400 = 57,600/- 1/4th = 72,000 – 18,000 = 54,000 3. Multiplier X 14 = 8,06,400/- X14 = 7,56,000 /- 4. Future Prospect 25 % = 8,06,400+2,01,600 = 10,08,000/- 25% = 9,45,000/- 5. Loss of Estate 15,000 15,000 6. Funeral expenses 15,000 15,000 7. Loss of Consortium 40,000 x 6 = 2,40,000 2,40,000 6 Total 12,78,000/- 12,15,000/- Final Compensation Rs.12,15,000 – 12,78,000 Rs. 63,000 In view of the above calculation, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 12,15,000/-. The stipulation of awarding 12% interest in case of default is hereby set aside. The amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 10. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim