1 2025:CGHC:53985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 984 of 2018 1 - Smt. Rashmi Sharma W/o Late Shriram Sharma Aged About 35 Years R/o Budhapara, Gokul Chandrama, Mandir Gali, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Yogank Sharma S/o Late Shriram Sharma Aged About 18 Years R/o Budhapara, Gokul Chandrama, Mandir Gali, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Bachnu Yadav S/o Shri Sadnand Yadav Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Darribasti, Post Darri, Ps Darri, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Truck), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sri Mahavir Agrawal, S/o Late Ramkumar Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Agrasen Chowk, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Manu Complex, Main Road, Dosa Badi, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Krishna Mahananda S/o Shri Mukardam Mahananda, Aged About 31 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar, Raipur, Near Pratik Kirana Stores, Gandhi Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Car), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri Pritish Sharma S/o Shri G.D. Sharma, R/o Pridarshani Nagar, Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Car)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Zonal Office No. 2 Shyam Market, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Car)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 --- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Sameer Uraon, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Amishan Hussain, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 04.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 23.09.2016 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 07/2013. 2. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.11,68,339/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of the deceased/Shriram Sharma in an accident that took place on 27.02.2001, at about 8:45 pm when the deceased late Shri Shriram Sharma was returning to Raipur with driver along with his wife and with his nephew Neeraj Sharma on Tata Safari (car) from Bilaspur, the driver of the offending Truck Bearing Registration No. M.P. 26-D-4268 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with the Tata Safari (car). Consequently, late Shriram Sharma sustained grievous injuries as his body got stuck in the vehicle (Tata Safari) and it took lots of efforts to take him out and immediately thereafter, he was taken to the Simga Hospital for treatment where doctor of the said hospital declared him dead. The accident was reported to the Police Station- Simga against respondent No.1/driver for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. 3. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased Shriram 3 Sharma was 30 years of age and a healthy person and was doing the work of agriculture and also doing some business work, from which, he earned Rs. 45,45,000/- p.a.. The claimants suffered the agony of untimely death of Shriram Sharma and faced mentally and economically sufferings as such, they claimed a total sum of Rs.4,95,30,000/- with interest as compensation under various heads. 4. Respondent No. 2/Driver has filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of incident and there is no violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5. Respondent No.3/Insurance company in its written statement pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license and, the same falls under the breach and violation of insurance policy, liability, if any, to pay compensation is of respondents No. 1 and 2/ owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 6. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the claimants for enhancement 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancing of the award, learned Tribunal has failed to consider the income of the deceased as he was doing agricultural work as well as doing some business from which he was earning a certain amount of income. It is further contended that learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased, which is very less, as such, the income of the deceased 4 should have been taken properly. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded less compensation under the other heads. Thus, the appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation suitably. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Prem Lal and others vs. Narendra Kumar,1, Smt. Anjali & others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Devi & Other 2018 Lawsuit (SC) 563 & National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi 3 . 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed a cross-objection in which it has been stated that he was remained ex parte before the learned Claims Tribunal and therefore he has been declared ex parte, however he has not moved any application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for stetting aside ex parte award, even after passing of the award dated 23.09.2016, no steps have been taken by the respondent No.2. Subsequently, when the notices were issued by this Court on 25.04.2025, he received the same notice on 11.06.2025 to 13.06.2025, as such, he has preferred this cross-objection, while submitting exoneration from indemnifying the award and stating that his vehicle was insured, as such, liability should have been fastened upon the insurance company/respondent No.3 I.e, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Manu Complex, Main Road, Dosa Badi, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.). 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 supporting the award impugned submits that the learned Tribunal minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The 1 (2024) 9 SCC 441 2 2022 Livelaw (SC) 1012 3 AIR 2017 SC 5157 5 impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper according to the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, which does not call for any interference. Further, he has categorically submitted that the offending vehicle was not insured and therefore the Claims Tribunal has rightly passed the award while exonerating the insurance company from its liability. The submission advanced by counsel for respondent No.2/ the owner is incorrect on the face of the record. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. On perusal of the record, it appears that in spite of knowledge of notice, respondent No. 2 has chosen not to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal, as such, he has been declared ex parte, he has not moved any application for setting aside the ex parte order and he has further not challenged the award, as such the cross-objection filed by the respondent No. 2 is without any merits, is liable to and is accordingly dismissed. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. So far as appeal for enhancement of compensation is concerned, though the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased namely Shriram Sharma was income tax payee and he was 6 running a industry M/s. Aakash Rice and Oil Industries. The claimants/appellants have submitted income tax return (Ex.P/20) pertaining to year 1999-2000 showing an income of Rs. 4,54,458/- p.a.. Ex. P/25, the income tax return pertaining to year 2000-2001 showing an income of Rs. 3,76,508/- p.a. The claimants/appellants have further exhibited, audit report (Ex.P/23) of M/s. Akash Rice and Oil Industries, she/claimant No.1 has also got exhibited Ex.P/24 to Ex.P/32 showing that the aforesaid industry was being handled by the deceased Shriram Sharma. 15. In order to consider the aforesaid documents, this Court has gone through the documents and it has found that the aforesaid documents does not go to show that the said industry was being run by the deceased. The documents of income tax return, though in the name of the deceased Shriram Sharma, however, from these documents also, it does not transpire from the record that the deceased was running M/s. Akash Rice and Oil Industries, independently. 16. So far as income tax returns showing income from other sources are concerned, it also goes to show that the independent income of the deceased was not being proved, merely on the basis of income tax returns, it cannot be assumed and presumed that the deceased was earning a fixed income as pleaded by the claimants. The Aakash Rice and Oil Industries is run by Hindu United Family and from the pleadings as well as the documents, the share of the deceased was not clear. 17. Though, learned counsel for the appellants has cited aforesaid judgments, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the aforesaid case laws in respect of income tax and other aspect are not relevant, as such they are not being considered. 7 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:” "17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 19. From the evidence, it is further transpired that the claimant No. 1 has subsequently married with elder brother of the deceased who is also a member of Hindu United Family, as such, this Court while making balance of the amount concerned, considers the per month income of the deceased to be Rs. 25,000/- i.e., Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum. As regards future prospects, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e.,1,20,000/- the total yearly income would come to Rs.4,20,000/- (Rs. 3,00,000+1,20,000/-). 20. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was stated to be 26-30 8 years and there are 2 to 3 dependents. So the deduction towards personal expenses would be one-third and the annual dependency comes to Rs. 2,80,000/- (4,20,000-1,40,000/-). In view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; 4 and Pranay Sethi (Supra), considering the age of deceased, multiplier 17 is applied to assess the total loss of dependency, which comes to Rs. 47,60,000/- (2,80,000 x 17). In addition, on conventional heads, the claimants are further entitled to get Rs. 18,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses and as per Pranay Sethi (Supra) each dependents/claimants are entitled to get Rs.48,000/- for loss of consortium. Hence the claimants would become entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 48,92,000/-. In view of the above , this Court is computing the compensation in the following manner :- S. No. Head Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Income of the deceased 25,000x12= 3,00,000/- p.a. 2. 40% above to be added towards future prospects 4,20,000/- (3,00,000+1,20,000/-) 3. 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased 4,20,000-1,40,000/-= 2,80,000/- p.a. 4. Multiplier applied 17 5. Total loss of dependency 47,60,000/- (2,80,000x17) 6. For loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1. and filial consortium to appellant No. 2 with 10% increase in every three years. 48,000/- each i.e., Total Rs. 96,000/- 7. For loss of estate with 10% increase in every three years 18,000/- 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 9 8. For funeral expenses with 10% increase in every three years. 18,000/- Total compensation awarded 48,92,000/- 21. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimants/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 48,92,000/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs.11,68,339/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 37,23,661/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 22. Appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned award to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL