1 2025:CGHC:51228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 636 of 2017 1 - Smt. Ganga Bai W/o Batal Satnami, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Torra, Post Mota Nawapara Thana And Distt. Nawapara Odisha, Orissa 2 - Bhojram S/o Late Baital Satnami, Aged About 1 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Ganga Bai, R/o Village Torra, Post Mota Nawapara Thana And Distt. Nawapara Odisha, District : Nuapada *, Orissa 3 - Bishat S/o Piluram, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Torra, Post Mota Nawapara Thana And Distt. Nawapara Odisha, District : Nuapada *, Orissa 4 - Smt. Tijai Bai W/o Bahadur Sahu, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Torra, Post Mota Nawapara Thana And Distt. Nawapara Odisha ................Claimants, District : Nuapada *, Orissa --- Appellants versus 1 - Ashok Bannchhor S/o Chitram Bannchhor, Shardapur, Thana Kantabhanji Distt. Balangir Odisha, Other Address- Employment Under Chhatra Putel S/o Baksha, Aged About 50 Years, Village Sargiguda Post Sarbul Thana Kantabhanji Distt. Balangir Odisha .............Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Swraj Majada Bearing Registration No. O.R.15 Q 7328, Orissa 2 - Chhatra Putel S/o Baksha, Aged About 50 Years Village Sargiguda Post Sarbul Thana Kantabhanji Distt. Balangir Odisha .............Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Swraj Majada Bearing Registration No. O.R.15 Q 7328, District : Balangir, Orissa 3 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited, 5th Floor, Dainik Bhaskar Press Complex Rajbandha Maidan Thana Maudahapara Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh .............Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Swraj Majada Bearing Registration No. O.R.15 Q 7328, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Res. No. 1 & 2 : None. For Res. No. 3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. MAC No. 121 of 2017 1 - Magma H. D. I. General Insurance Company Ltd. 5th Floor, Dainik Bhaskar Press Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, Police Station Maudahapara, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer Of Vehicle Registration No. O R-15-Q-7328, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Ganga Bai Wd/o Late Baital Satnami, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Torra, Post- Mota Nawapara, Thana And Distt. Nawapara Odisha, Orissa 2 - Bhojram S/o Late Baital Satnami, Aged About 1 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Res.No.1 Smt. Ganga Bai, R/o Village- Torra, Post- Mota Nawapara, Thana And Distt. Nawapara Odisha, District : Nuapada *, Orissa 3 - Bishat S/o Piluram, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Torra, Post- Mota Nawapara, Thana And Distt. Nawapara Odisha, District : Nuapada *, Orissa 4 - Smt. Tijai W/o Bishat Aged About 60 Years Name Of Husband Not Mentioned In Cause Title R/o Village- Torra, Post- Mota Nawapara, Thana And Distt. Nawapara Odisha ................Claimants, District : Nuapada *, Orissa 5 - Ashok Banchhor S/o Chaitram Banchhor, R/o Shardapur, Police Station Kantabhanji, District Balangir Odisha Other Address- Employment Under Chhatra Putel S/o Baksha, Village- Sargiguda, Post Sarbul Thana Kantabhanji, Distt. Balangir Odisha ..............Driver Of Vehicle Registration No. O R-15-Q-7328, District : Balangir, Orissa 6 - Chhatra Putel S/o Baksha Putel, Aged About 50 Years R/o Sargiguda, Post Sarbul, Police Station Kantabhanji, District Balangir Kalahandi Odisha ..............Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. O R-15-Q-7328, District : Kalahandi, Orissa --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Res. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. For Res. No. 5 & 6 : None 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/10/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 27.10.2016 has been passed. MAC No. 121 of 2017 is insurer’s appeal and MAC No. 636 of 2017 is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 27.10.2016 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maharashtra (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H.118/2015. 2. The case of the claimants is that the appellants/claimants, comprising the widow, minor son, and parents of the deceased Baital Satnami, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. It was averred that on 15.08.2013, at approximately 7:00 A.M., while the deceased was travelling on his motorcycle from Mahasmund to Bagbahara, a Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No. O.R.15/Q.7328, coming from the opposite direction at high speed and being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1, struck the motorcycle from behind near Bagbahara, resulting in the deceased sustaining multiple grievous injuries and dying on the spot. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 35 years old and employed as a mason and contractor, earning approximately 4 Rs. 400/- per day. A First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Nawapara, District Nawapara (Odisha), and a criminal case bearing No. 46/2015 under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against the driver. Respondents No. 1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the learned Claims Tribunal. The insurance company, respondent No. 3, Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company, contested the claim by filing a written statement, alleging breach of policy terms and that the claim amount was excessive. However, the insurer neither examined any witnesses nor proved any specific breach of policy conditions. In support of the claim, the appellants examined three witnesses i.e. Ganga Bai (A.W.1), Sonkuwar (A.W.2), and Narsingh Harigan (A.W.3), who reiterated the occupation of deceased, age, and earnings. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, particularly regarding the assessment of income and application of the multiplier, the appellants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by an additional sum of Rs. 22,00,000/-. MAC No. 121/2017 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is patently erroneous, contrary to the facts and evidence available on 5 record, and is legally unsustainable. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material evidence in its proper perspective and has overlooked vital legal principles applicable to the adjudication of claims under the Motor Vehicles Act. The impugned award has been passed without proper compliance with the procedure contemplated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 226 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. It is argued that the claimants failed to establish the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident, and the Tribunal erred in recording a finding on this issue without any cogent evidence. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded is on the higher side and does not reflect a just or reasonable assessment. The Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, despite there being only three dependents; the correct deduction should have been 1/3rd, as per settled law. Additionally, the Tribunal has mechanically added 50% towards future prospects without any documentary evidence on record to prove the deceased's stable or permanent employment. In the absence of such proof, the addition of future prospects is unjustified and liable to be reduced. Moreover, counsel for the appellant argues that the claimants failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving 6 of the respondent No. 5 (driver of the offending vehicle). No eyewitness has been examined, and mere lodging of the FIR does not prove negligence. Since the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden was on the claimants to prove the negligence of the driver, which they failed to discharge. The finding of the learned Tribunal on negligence, as recorded in paragraph 9 of the award, is therefore flawed and contrary to law. Lastly, it is submitted that the award is based on assumptions and conjectures, lacking any solid foundation in law or fact, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The appellant-insurer reserves its right to raise additional grounds at a later stage of proceedings. In view of the above, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned award and exonerate the appellant from liability. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company and have also perused the document enclosed along with the appeal. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal, while computing the compensation, added 50% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects. However, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matetr of Pranay Sethi (supra) and reiterated in subsequent decisions, where the deceased was self-employed or engaged in a fixed income occupation and 7 below the age of 40 years, the appropriate addition towards future prospects should be 40% of the income. In the present case, the deceased was stated to be around 35 years of age and working as a mason/contractor, which qualifies as self-employed work. There is no documentary proof of regular or permanent income. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future prospects instead of 40%. 6. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to partly allow the appeal filed by the insurance company. The addition towards future prospects is reduced from 50% to 40%. Except for the modification in the quantum under the head of future prospects, no other ground urged by the appellant-insurer warrants interference. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence, involvement of the offending vehicle, and application of the multiplier is duly supported by the evidence on record and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is partly allowed to the above extent. MAC No. 636/2017 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the evidence and material available on record. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the 8 statements of the witnesses of claimant, who had consistently deposed regarding the occupation, age, and income of the deceased. The rejection of their testimony, without any cogent or convincing reasoning, amounts to a grave error in appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious legal error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at only Rs. 4,710/-, despite uncontroverted evidence that the deceased was working as a mason and contractor earning Rs. 400/- per day. Reference is made to authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santoshi Devi & Others v. National Insurance Co. [(2013) 6 SCC 421], Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar & Others [(2014) 5 SCC 330, para 9], and Neeta v. Divisional Manager, MSRTC [(2015) 3 SCC 590], wherein the Courts have accepted similar daily wage rates while computing income in the absence of documentary evidence. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly applied a deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses, ignoring the fact that the deceased had four dependents. As per the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopali & Others [(2012) 12 SCC 198], in cases where there are four or more dependents, the correct deduction ought to have been 1/5th and not 1/4th, as applied by the Tribunal. Additionally, it is urged that the Tribunal 9 has erred in applying an incorrect multiplier. Given that the deceased was 31 years of age at the time of death, the appropriate multiplier, in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another [(2009) 6 SCC 121], as well as the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, should have been 16. Application of a lower multiplier has resulted in substantial under-assessment of the compensation. Further, learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal failed to award compensation under various conventional heads and did not follow the law laid down in Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others [(2013) 9 SCC 54, paras 7 & 19], Yerramma v. G. Krishnamurthy [(2014) 4 TAC 337 (SC)], Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State [(2015) 2 SCC 764], Kala Devi v. Bhagwan Das Chouhan [(2014) 4 TAC 673 (SC)], Asha Verman v. Maharaj Singh [(2015) 2 TAC 299 (SC)], and Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 166], where the Apex Court laid down guidelines for grant of just and fair compensation under various heads, including loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. It is further submitted that the overall assessment made by the Tribunal is not only contrary to settled legal principles but also perverse and based on an incorrect appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case in their 10 proper perspective and overlooked relevant material, thereby resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Lastly, it is argued that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum, whereas in similar cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved a higher rate of 12% per annum. The appellants, therefore, are also entitled to enhancement of the rate of interest. In light of the above submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to suitably modify and enhance the compensation by an additional sum of Rs. 9,32,592/-, over and above the amount already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. H-118/2015, in the interest of justice. 9. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. 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. 12. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of 11 awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The case pertains to a fatal motor vehicle accident dated 15.08.2013, in which the deceased Baital Satnami lost his life due to the rash and negligent driving of Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing registration No. O.R.15/Q.7328. The factum of accident, age of the deceased (35 years), and liability of the insurer are not in serious dispute. 14. Upon careful consideration, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,710/- per month, which is on the lower side and not in line with the prevailing statutory minimum wages applicable to skilled workers at the relevant time. The deceased was working as a mason and contractor, and in the absence of documentary proof, the income should have been assessed based on the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, this Court assesses the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,787/-. 15. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], and considering that the deceased was aged 35 years and self-employed, future prospects to the extent of 40% ought to be added. Hence, the monthly income inclusive of future prospects comes to Rs. 8,102/- (i.e., Rs. 5,787 + 40%),. 12 Considering there were four dependents, the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/4th, as rightly applied by the Tribunal. After such deduction, the effective monthly contribution to the family would be Rs.2025/- (monthly income would be 6,077. The applicable multiplier is 16, in terms of the age of the deceased as per the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). The compensation towards loss of dependency is recalculated by taking the monthly income of the deceased (after applying 40% future prospects and deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses) as Rs. 6,077/-. Applying the multiplier of 16, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency works out to Rs.11,66,784/- (Rs. 6,077 × 12 × 16). In addition to this, the claimants are entitled to compensation under conventional heads, in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and other subsequent judgments. Under the head of loss of consortium, an amount of Rs. 48,000/- is awarded to each of the four dependents, totaling Rs. 1,92,000/- (Rs. 48,000 x 4). Further, a sum of Rs. 18,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and another Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate. 16. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,94,784/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of Rs. 11,66,784/- 13 dependency 02 Towards loss of consortium 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. 13,94,784/- 17. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 13,94,784/-. After deducting Rs.12,67,408/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhanced amount would be Rs.1,27,376/-. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed. The objection raised by the appellant–insurance company with respect to the erroneous addition of future prospects has been duly considered and stands addressed in the present judgment. However, in the interest of justice and to ensure expeditious relief to the claimants, the amount of compensation is reassessed and enhanced to the extent indicated above. The insurance company is accordingly directed to deposit the modified compensation amount before the learned Claims Tribunal within a period of eight weeks, if the same has not already been paid. 14 19. Record of the tribunal be sent back along with copy of this order forthwith for necessary information and action. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna