1 2025:CGHC:53288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1396 of 2024 Smt. Dhaneshwari Sahu, Wd/o Late Chandraprakash Sahu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Gayatri Mandir Road, Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Village Dandesara, Tahsil- Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Claimant- Widow) ... Appellant versus 1 - Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Shivlal Kumar R/o Kamal Vidha, Near Shiv Mandir, Katari Sarai, Police Station- Katari Sarai, District Nalanda (Bihar), Presently R/o Subhashpara, Bhanupratppur, Cashier S.B.I. Bank, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh (Driver And Owner Of Car No. P.B13/b.F./4123). 2 - I.F.F.C.O- Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager/divisional Office- Shop No. 205, Second Floor, In Front Of Industry, M.M. Silver Plaza, Mahaveer Nagar Road No. 01, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Car No. P.B13/b.F./4123). 3 - Smt. Vishakha Sahu W/o Shri Hemlal Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Gayatri Mandir Road, Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Hemlal Sahu S/o Shri Rupram Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Gayatri Mandir Road, Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Ashish Sahu, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 None though served. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 31/10/2025 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 12.04.2024, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Claim Case No. 25/2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed award to the tune of Rs. 13,61,288/- on account of death of Chandraprakash Sahu. 2. Facts of the present case are that on 30.05.2021, Chandraprakash Sahu was returning his home from Kanker to Kurud on his motorcycle (CG-05-AC-2187) and when he reached near Ratsara (Charama) at about 7.30 hrs., the offending vehicle, Car (PB.-13-BF-4123) being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner, dashed motorcycle of the deceased, as a result, Chandraprakash sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment on 09.06.2021. The Claimant /widow filed claim case and parents of the deceased were impleaded as respondents No. 3 & 4. 3. The claimant pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 27 years and he was working as Driver and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The driver/owner of the offending vehicle and insurance company filed their reply and denied the averments made in the claim application. The learned tribunal framed issues and parties led evidence and award was passed on 12.04.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal has considered his notional income at Rs. 6,000/- ignoring the fact that the deceased was a driver. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal has granted 40 % future prospect; deducted 1/3rd, applied multiplier 17 and granted Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium to parents instead of 40,000-40000 each. She would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 3 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 & 4 would support the argument put forth by Ms. Patel. 6. There is no representation on behalf on behalf of Insurance Company despite service of notice. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Admittedly, age of the deceased at the time of accident was 27 years. The respondents No.3 & 4 are parents of the deceased. The claimant pleaded in Claim Case that the deceased was a Driver and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Xerox copy of Driving license was produced before the learned Tribunal but as original was not produced, therefore, same could not be exhibited. Claimant AW/1 in para 2 of her evidence has categorically stated that her husband was working as Driver with Bajaj Builder. and he was earning Rs. 20,000/-. The said piece of evidence regarding income remained unrebutted in cross-examination as no question was put by the driver and owner or insurance company with regard to his income. 9. The award would further show that the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- only for loss of consortium to parents of the deceased instead of Rs.40,000-40,000/- each. 10. With regard to income of the deceased, as pleaded and proved by the claimant that deceased was Driver and earning Rs.20,000/- but in absence of documentary evidence, it cannot be presumed that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month but taking into consideration the unexhibited driving license which is part of the record and evidence of the claimant, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month. Accordingly, the compensation is recomputed as under:- 4 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income 6000 x 12 = 72,000 15,000 x 12 = 1,80,000/- 2. Future Prospect 40% 1,00,800/- 1,80,000 +72,000 = 2,52,000/- 3. Deduction 1/3 = 67,200 1/3 = 1,68,000 4. Multiplier 17 = 11,42,400/- 17= 28,56,000/- 5. Loss of Estate 16,500 16,500/- 6. Funeral expenses 16,500/- 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium (for appellan) 44,000 44,000 8. Loss of consortium(for respondents No.3 & 4) 50,000 44,000+44,000 = 88,000 9 For Treatment 91,888/- 91,888/- Total 13,61,288 30,21,000/- 11. In view of the above calculation, the Insurance company is directed to pay additional compensation i.e. 16,59,712/- to the claimant & parents of the deceased within a period of 60 days with interest @ 7 % per annum, failing which, it shall carry penal interest @ 18% per annum till its realization. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim