1 2025:CGHC:55711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 859 of 2018 1 - Smt. Tamin Bai W/o Late Nathuram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jewartala, Thana/tehsil Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ageshwar Kumar Sahu S/o Late Nathuram Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Jewartala, Thana/tehsil Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Karan Nirmalkar S/o Siyaram Nirmalkar Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No.27, Indira Nagar Dallirajhara, Thana Rajhara, Tehsil Dondi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Laxmi Vey (Bambey) Pvt. Ltd. 07-Civic Center Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Peer Moh. S/o Riyaj Moh., Near Anil Printing Press Dallirajhara, Thana Rajhara, Tehsil Dondi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Office, Kamthi Line Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants :- Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :- None, though served. For Respondent No. 3:- Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 14.11.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Claims Case No. 115/2016, whereby a total compensation of ₹8,01,000/- was awarded to the claimants from the date of application till realization, fastening the liability upon the non-applicants No. 1 & 2. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 26.10.2016 at about 4:00 p.m., the deceased Nathuram Sahu was returning to his village Jewartala on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-AP- 9463 when, near village Kalangpur to Khalari, he was hit by the offending Metadoor vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07-C-0081, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, causing him grievous injuries on his head, mouth, ear, legs, shoulder and other parts of the body, leading to his death during treatment at Gunderdehi Hospital. it was further pleaded that the deceased was working as an Accountant in a bricks factory at Gunderdehi and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, and that due to the untimely death of the sole breadwinner, 3 the claimants suffered irreparable financial and emotional loss and were therefore entitled to compensation of Rs. 22,50,000/- under various heads. The offending vehicle was driven by non-applicant No. 1, owned by non-applicant No. 2 and insured with non-applicant No. 3 (Insurance Company) at the time of the accident. 3. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,500/- per month, i.e. Rs. 78,000/- per annum. After applying 1/3rd deduction of the deceased’s income, Rs.52,000/- was come. By applying the multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency was computed at Rs. 6,76,000/-. In addition, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was granted to appellant No. 1 for spousal consortium, Rs. 25,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, thereby making the total compensation amount Rs. 8,01,000/- Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that that the impugned award passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, is arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the settled principles of law, as the compensation awarded is on the lower side and not in consonance with the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not applying future prospect which should be applied 25% in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the appellant prays to enhance the compensation amount suitably in the interest of justice. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, has rightly awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. 6. None appears for the respondents No. 1 7 2, though served. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,500/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 6,500/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 78,000/- 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. 19,500/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 97,500/-. 9. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 47 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife and father of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 32,500/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 65,000/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme 5 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 13, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 8,45,000/-. 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. (40,000/- X2+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 96,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and father of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 9,77,000/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 8,45,000/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X2+10% +10%). Rs. 96,000/- 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. 9,77,000/- 6 10. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 9,77,000/-. After deducting Rs. 8,01,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,76,000/-. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife and father of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,76,000/- 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 Vishakha