1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 195 of 2016 Maniyaro W/o Late Munni @ Kalamsay, aged about 48 years R/o Village- Shantipara, New- Mines, Bhatgaon, P.S.- Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1. Ghooran Ram S/o Basant Ram, aged about 50 years Caste- Kawar, R/o New- Mines, Bhatgaon, Quarter No. 483, P.S.- Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Deputy Regional Manager (Khanan) S.E.C.L. Dugga, O.C.M. Bhatgaon Area, P.S.- Bhatgaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None, though served. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 28.02.2025 1. This appeal is by the claimant against the award dated 17.08.2015 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District: Surajpur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 35 of 2014 SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.03.04 10:38:27 +0530 2 awarding total compensation of Rs. 2,36,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization, while fastening liability on the respondents, jointly and severally. 2. As per claim petition, on 13.12.2013, at about 11:00 am, the deceased Munni @ Kalam Sai was going towards C.H.P. Chowk, at that time, the dumper vehicle No. 1003 (Haulpak) belonging to S.E.C.L. (for short ‘the offending vehicle’) driven by respondent No. 1, rashly and negligently, ran over the deceased Munni @ Kalam Sai, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, it is not disputed that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/-, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the deceased was an agricultural labourer and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal did not consider the income as pleaded and has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month on notional basis, which is a very meager amount, whereas, it should be assessed in accordance with minimum wages prevailed at that time. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, which ought to have been awarded looking to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. He also submits that the Tribunal has also not awarded 3 sufficient amount under the other conventional heads, which needs to be enhanced suitably, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Therefore, the amount of compensation needs to be reassessed suitably. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, while admitting that no appeal has been filed by the SECL Company against the impugned award. He further submits that the offending vehicle Haulpak (Dumper) does not fall under the category of motor vehicle, therefore, provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are not attracted, however, the learned Claims Tribunal has decided the issue No. 1 by holding that the vehicle involved in the said accident, fall under the category of motor vehicle and the claim petition is admissible and such finding cannot be sustained. He further submits that there is no ground for enhancement. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 7. So far as the contention raised by respondent No. 2 is concerned, admittedly the offending vehicle (Haulpak) involved in the said accident is a dumper. This Court, based on the decision of the M.P. High Court rendered in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Sahiba Khatun and Ors., (2000 ACJ 168) has held in SECL and Others vs. Bharti Devi and Others reported in 2011 (3) CGLJ 204, that dumper is a motor vehicle. The learned Tribunal, relying upon the decision of SECL and Others (supra), has also held the offending 4 vehicle involved in the said accident to be a motor vehicle and accordingly, rejected the contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of SECL. The said finding is not challenged by the respondents, therefore, in my view, it needs no interference by this Court. The learned claims Tribunal has further held that on the date of accident the said offending vehicle was being driven by its driver respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and further has held the respondents jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. 8. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimant has pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased used to earn Rs. 12,000/- per month by working as agricultural labour, but no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to substantiate the said fact. However, the Tribunal, on its own, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is not just and proper. Considering the facts of the case, and the fact that deceased was aged about 57 years and looking to the nature of work of deceased and also the minimum wages, I therefore, propose to reassess the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,163/- per month i.e. Rs. 61,956/- per annum. 9. So far as future prospects is concerned, the Tribunal considering the pleadings, evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, determined the age of the deceased as 57 years, however, erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 5 10% towards loss of future prospects for the persons who are between the age group 50-60 years. Therefore, in the present case, the applicable percentage of future prospects would be 10%. If 10% (Rs. 6,195/-) is added in the annual income then the total annual income would come to Rs. 68,151/-. 10. So far as the multiplier 9 used by the Tribunal is concerned, it is correct and if the annual income is multiplied by 9 then the Loss of Annual Dependency would come to Rs. 6,13,359/-. If 1/3 (Rs. 2,04,453/-) is deducted towards personal and living expenses, then the total Loss of Dependency would come to Rs. 4,08,906/-. 11. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, which needs to be reassessed in view of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimant is entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards Loss of Estate and thus the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 30,000/- in place of Rs. 10,000/-. In view of dictum rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), the appellant who is the sole claimant and wife of the deceased is also entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards Spousal Consortium. Thus, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- is assessed under such heads. 12. In this way, the claimant is entitled to be awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,78,906/- total compensation in place of Rs. 2.36,000/-. 13. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 2,36,000/- after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs. 4,78,906/-, the appellant herein is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 2,42,906/- 6 with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh