1 2025:CGHC:54471 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1791 of 2018 1 - Anita Singh Wd/o Late Shri Sanjeev Singh Rajput Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Shivnandanpur, Police Station And Post Vishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ..........Claimants. ..Applicants., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Shristhi Singh D/o Late Shri Sanjeev Singh Rajput, Aged About 2.5 Years. Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anita Singh R/o Village Shivnandanpur Police Station And Post Vishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ...........Claimants., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Suman Singh Wd/o Late Ranvir Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Shivnandanpur Police Station And Post Vishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. .........Claimants., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Pathalgaon, Police Station Post Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ..........Insurer Of Vehicle., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 2 - Smt. Manju Rajput W/o Shri Sanjay Rajput R/o Ambikapur Road, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ..........Owner Of Vehicle., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vinod Kumar Singh S/o Shri Balchand Singh Aged About 40 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Vilai Tangar, Police Station And Post Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh..................Driver Of Vehicle., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ashish Kumar Singhal S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Singhal Aged About 25 Years R/o Bori Para, Ambikapur, Police Station And Post- Ambikapur, Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Head Office, I.C.I.C.I Lombard House 414, Veer Sawarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Tempal, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, Maharashtra., District : Mumbai, Maharashtra. 6 - Anushka Singh D/o Kaptan Singh Aged About 11 Years R/o Village- Shivnandanpur, Police Station And Post- Vishrampur, Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Rajiv Singh S/o Ranvir Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Shivnandanpur, Police Station And Post- Vishrampur, Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate appeared through V.C. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate along with Mr. Bennon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : None. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondents No. 6 to 7 : None. 3 MAC No. 1783 of 2018 1 - Smt. Mamta Agrawal Wd./o Late Manoj Kumar Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Rasera Police Station Chandrameda ,post Chandrameda, Tahsil Surajpur ,district Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ......... Claimants, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Kanak Garg D/o Late Manoj Kumar Agrawal Aged About 13 Years Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mamta Agrawal ,wd./o Late Manoj Kumar Agrawal R/o Village Rasera Police Station Chandrameda ,post Chandrameda, Tahsil Surajpur ,district Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ......... Claimants, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Aditya Garg S/o Late Manoj Kumar Agrawal Aged About 11 Years Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mamta Agrawal ,wd/o Late Manoj Kumar Agrawal R/o Village Rasera Police Station Chandrameda ,post Chandrameda, Tahsil Surajpur ,district Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ......... Claimants, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Maman Chand Agrawal S/o Late Shri Janki Das Agrawal Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Rasera Police Station Chandrameda ,post Chandrameda, Tahsil Surajpur ,district Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ......... Claimants, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager ,the Oriental Insurance ,company Limited , Branch Office ,the Orintal Insurance Company Limited Pathalgaon ,police Station Post Pathalgaon ,district Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 2 - Smt. Manju Rajpur W/o Shri Sanjay Rajput R/o Ambikapur Road , Pathalgaon District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vinod Kumar Singh S/o Shri Balchand Singh Aged About 40 Years Occupation Driver R/o Village Vilai Tangar ,police Station And Post Pathalgaon ,district Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ashish Kumar Singhal S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Singhal Aged About 25 Years R/o Bori Para ,ambikapur Police Station And Post Ambikapur ,tahsil Surajpur ,district Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Head Office I.C.I.C.I. Lombard House 414 Veer Sawarkar Marg Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple ,prabhadevi Mumbai 40025 Maharashtra, District : Mumbai, Maharashtra. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate appeared through V.C. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate along with Mr. Bennon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : None. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. MAC No. 1282 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Its Branch Office, Pathalgaon, Police Station And Post- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh, Represented Through Its Assistant Manager, T.P. Hub, Divisional Office, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Mst. Mamta Agrawal Wd/o Late Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Rasira, Police Station- Chandramedha, Tahsil And District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Kanak Garg, D/o Late Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through- Their Next Friend Respondent No. 1 Mst. Mamta Agrawal, Wd/o Late Manoj Agrawal, R/o Village- Rasira, Police Station- Chandramedha, Tahsil And District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Aditya Garg, S/o Late Manoj Kumar Garg, Aged About 11 Years Minor, Through- Their Next Friend Respondent No. 1 Mst. Mamta Agrawal, Wd/o Late Manoj Agrawal, R/o Village- Rasira, Police Station- Chandramedha, Tahsil And District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Maman Chand Agrawal S/o Late Janki Das Agrawal, Aged About 71 Years R/o Village- Rasira, Police Station- Chandramedha, Tahsil And District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Manju Rajput, W/o Shri Sanjay Rajput, Ambikapur Road, Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Vinod Kumar Singh, S/o Balchand Singh, Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Driver, Village- Vilai Nagar, Police Station And Post- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Ashish Kumar Singhal, S/o Bajrang Lal Singhal, Aged About 27 Years R/o Bouripara, Ambikapur, Police Station And Post- Ambikapur, Tahsil And District- Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 8 - Manager, Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through- Its Manager, Head Office- Icici Lombard House 414, Veer Sawarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi Mumbai- 40025, Maharashrta., District : Mumbai, Maharashtra. 6 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate along with Mr. Bennon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate appeared through V.C. For Respondents No. 5 to 7 : None. For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1305 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Branch Office, Pathalgaon, P.S. And Post Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh Represented Through Its Asstt. Manager, T.P. Hub Divisional Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Mst. Aneeta Singh Wd/o Late Sanjeev Singh Rajput, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Shivnandanpur, Police Station And Post Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Srishti Singh D/o Late Sanjeev Singh Rajput Aged About 2 Years Minor And Represented Through Their Next Friend Respondent No. 1 Mst. Aneeta Singh, Wd/o Late Sanjeev Singh Rajput Aged 27 Years R/o Village Shivnandanpur, Police Station And Post Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Suman Singh Wd/o Late Ranvir Singh Aged About 52 Years Minor And Represented Through Their Next Friend Respondent No. 1 Mst. Aneeta Singh, Wd/o Late Sanjeev Singh Rajput Aged 27 Years R/o 7 Village Shivnandanpur, Police Station And Post Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Anushka Singh D/o Kaptan Singh Aged About 11 Years Minor And Represented Through Their Next Friend Respondent No. 1 Mst. Aneeta Singh, Wd/o Late Sanjeev Singh Rajput Aged 27 Years R/o Village Shivnandanpur, Police Station And Post Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Rajeev Singh S/o Ranvir Singh Aged About 29 Years Minor And Represented Through Their Next Friend Respondent No. 1 Mst. Aneeta Singh, Wd/o Late Sanjeev Singh Rajput Aged 27 Years R/o Village Shivnandanpur, Police Station And Post Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Manju Rajput W/o Shri Sanjay Rajput, Ambikapur Road, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Vinod Kumar Singh S/o Balchand Singh Aged About 42 Years Occupation Driver, Village Vilai Tangar, Police Station And Post Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Ashish Kumar Singhal S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Singhal Aged About 27 Years R/o Bouripara, Ambikapur, Police Station And Post Ambikapur, Tahsil And District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Car), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 9 - Manager Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager Head Office Icici Lombard House 414 Veer Sawarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabadevi Mumbai 40025 Maharashtra, District : Mumbai, Maharashtra. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate along with Mr. Bennon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate. 8 For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate appeared through V.C. For Respondents No. 6 to 8 : None. For Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. All the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 28.4.2018 has been passed. MAC Nos. 1282 of 2018 and 1305 of 2018 are insurer’s appeal and MAC Nos. 1791 of 2018 and 1783 of 2018 are claimants’ appeal against the award dated 28.4.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (C.G.). MAC No. 1282/2018 & MAC No. 1305/2018 2. Brief facts of the cases, are that, on 27.04.2016, an accident is alleged to have occurred between a bus bearing registration No. CG 14 D 0153 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending bus”), which was being driven by Vinod Singh (respondent No.7), and a Honda Amaze car bearing registration No. CG 15 CU 3892. In the said accident, Sanjeev Singh Rajput, a passenger in the car, along with the car driver, Manoj Kumar Agrawal, sustained grievous injuries, and both of them eventually succumbed to the said injuries. The present appeal, however, arises out of a claim in respect of the death of Sanjeev Singh Rajput. The appellant, 9 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., is the insurer of the bus, which stood insured in the name of respondent No.6, Smt. Manju Rajput, while the car was insured with respondent No.9, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., and was admittedly owned by respondent No.8, Ashish Kumar Singhal. The claimants, being the widow, daughter, mother, brother, and niece of the deceased Sanjeev Singh Rajput, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,88,000/-. Despite service of notice, the owner and driver of the bus, as well as the owner of the car (respondent No.8), remained ex parte. The appellant filed its written statement contesting the claim on various grounds, including breach of policy conditions due to the alleged plying of the insured vehicle without a valid driving licence, permit, and fitness certificate, and therefore sought exoneration from liability. A plea of composite negligence between the drivers of the bus and the car was also raised. Respondent No.9, however, denied its liability, contending that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, while also alleging breach of policy terms by the car owner. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) proceeded with the trial and, vide order dated 19.03.2018, allowed the appellant’s application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, permitting it to contest the claim on all grounds available to the owner/driver. Thereafter, by the impugned award dated 19.03.2018 passed in Claim Case No. 10 89/2016, the learned MACT assessed the total compensation at Rs. 28,58,374/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, payable jointly and severally by the appellant along with the owner and driver of the bus. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the offending bus was being operated in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as it was neither possessing a valid fitness certificate nor a valid permit to ply on the road at the time of the accident. It is further contended that the facts and circumstances of the case unmistakably indicate that the accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both vehicles involved. However, the learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the evidence and material available on record, failed to record a finding of contributory negligence and proceeded to fasten the entire liability upon the Insurance Company. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said erroneous findings, the present appeals have been preferred. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 has observed as under:- “In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants 11 had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and g proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh and Lakhmi Chand in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the "Tripitaka", that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the 12 High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,77,200 in MAC No. 1282/2018 and Rs. 28,58,374 in MAC No. 1305/2018 which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, these appeals may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. None for owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a careful perusal of the entire record, it is evident that the insurance company has failed to substantiate its allegations regarding the absence of a valid fitness certificate, permit, and the plea of contributory negligence. The learned Claims Tribunal, through a detailed and reasoned discussion contained in paragraphs 19, 22, and 23 of its judgment, has categorically held that the insurance company could not prove any of the grounds 13 raised on these aspects. The testimony of James Barwah (AW-2) clearly establishes that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. C.G.-14-D-0153, which was being driven in a reckless manner and collided with the Honda Amaze car bearing registration No. C.G.-15-CU-3892 (or 3852), resulting in the unfortunate deaths of two persons, namely, Manoj Kumar Agrawal and Sanjeev Singh Rajput. The very fact that two lives were lost in the incident itself demonstrates the extent of rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances, and the evidence available on record, as well as the findings recorded by the Tribunal, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the insurance company on the decision in Amrit Paul Singh (supra) is wholly misplaced and not applicable to the present case. 8. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the insurance company are liable to be and accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 1791/2018 9. Brief facts of the case, is that on 27.04.2016, the deceased Sanjeev Kumar Singh, along with Manoj Kumar Agrawal, was travelling in a Honda Amaze car bearing registration No. CG 15 CU 3892 from Village Lundra to Ambikapur, when near a school on Kharsia Road, their car was dashed by a bus bearing registration No. CG 14 G 0153, owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner. As a 14 result of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body and succumbed to those injuries on the spot. A report of the accident was lodged at the concerned police station, and after investigation, a charge- sheet was filed before the competent court against respondent No. 3. Owing to the accidental death of the deceased, who was the husband of appellant No. 1, father of appellant No. 2, and son of appellant No. 3, the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 80,88,000/- under various heads. The respondent No. 1, insurer of the bus bearing registration No. CG 14 D 0153, filed its written statement contending that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the bus did not possess a valid permit or fitness certificate, and the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both drivers, hence respondent No. 1 could not be held liable to pay compensation, and the income of the deceased was also disputed. Respondents No. 2 to 4 did not file any written statement and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 5, however, filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No. 3, making respondent No. 1 liable to pay compensation. After framing issues and appreciating the evidence on record, the 15 learned Claims Tribunal passed an award granting compensation of Rs. 28,58,374/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 10. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.13,666/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,63,992/- per annum. After adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 81,996/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,45,988/-. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 81,996/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 1,64,022/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 28 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 27,88,374/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 28,58,374/- in favour of the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 28,58,374/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side 16 and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 12. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for insurance company that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 13. None for driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. The Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 13,666/- per month which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 13,666/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,63,992/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 50% 17 towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 81,996/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,45,988/-. 18. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 28 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 81,996/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,63,992/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme 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 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 27,87,864/-. 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. (40,000X3+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, daughter and mother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 29,67,864/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 27,87,864/- 18 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X3+10% +10%). Rs. 1,44,000/- 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. 29,67,864/- 19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 29,67,864/-. After deducting Rs. 28,58,374/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,09,490/-. 20. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 1791/2018) is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, daughter and mother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,09,490/- 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. MAC No. 1783/2018 21. Brief facts of the case, is that on 27.04.2016, the deceased Manoj Kumar Agrawal along with Sanjeev Kumar Singh was travelling in a Honda Amaze car bearing registration No. CG 15 CU 3892 from 19 Village Lundra to Ambikapur when, near a school on Kharsia Road, their car was dashed by a bus bearing registration No. CG- 14/G-0153, owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of his body and died on the spot. The report of the accident was lodged at the concerned police station, and subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed against respondent No. 3 before the competent Court. On account of the accidental death of the deceased, who was the husband of appellant No. 1, father of appellant No. 2, and son of appellant No. 3, the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 74,25,000/- under various heads. The respondent No. 1, insurer of the bus bearing No. CG- 14/G-0153, filed its written statement denying liability and contending that there was a breach of policy conditions as the bus did not have a valid permit and fitness certificate, and the driver was not holding a proper driving licence. It was further submitted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both vehicles, and therefore, respondent No. 1 could not be held liable to pay compensation. Respondents No. 2 to 4 did not file any written statement and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 5 filed its written statement denying the averments of the claim petition and contending that the accident occurred due to the 20 negligence of respondent No. 3, and thus respondent No. 1 was liable to pay compensation. After framing the issues and evaluating the evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal passed an award amounting to Rs. 9,77,200/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 22. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/- per annum. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 21,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 75,600/-. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 18,900/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 56,700/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 31 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, children and father of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 9,07,200/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 9,77,200/- in favour of the wife, children and father of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,77,200/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation 21 awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 24. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for insurance company that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 25. None for driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 26. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- 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. 6,107/- per 22 month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 73,284/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 29,314/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,02,598/-. 30. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 31 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, children and father of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 25,650/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 76,948/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme 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 16, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 12,31,168/-. 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. (40,000X4+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, children and father of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of 23 Rs. 14,59,168/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 12,31,168/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X4+10% +10%). Rs. 1,92,000/- 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. 14,59,168/- 31. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 14,59,168/-. After deducting Rs. 9,77,200/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 4,81,968/-. 32. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 1783/2018) is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, children and father of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 4,81,968/- 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) Raghu Jat Judge