1 2025:CGHC:55242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1900 of 2018 1 - Smt. Rakli Dewangan W/o Late Mohan Dewangan Aged About 50 Years R/o Durga Nagar, Amleshwardih, P.O. Sankra Thana Amleshwar, District Durg Chhattisgarh................Claimant, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajesh S/o Late Mohan Dewangan Aged About 25 Years R/o Durga Nagar, Amleshwardih, P.O. Sankra Thana Amleshwar, District Durg Chhattisgarh................Claimant, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Harish S/o Late Mohan Dewangan Aged About 22 Years R/o Durga Nagar, Amleshwardih, P.O. Sankra Thana Amleshwar, District Durg Chhattisgarh................Claimant, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bhagwatram S/o Bhanuram Sahu, R/o Bhateli, Thana Bhakhra, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.............Non Applicant No. 1/driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-05-J-1788, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nilmani Yadav S/o Dulluram Yadav, R/o Sanjaynagar, Ring Road No. 1, Near Shiv Mandir Raipur, Thana Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh............Non Applicant No. 2/owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-05- J-1788, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Divisional Manager (Division No. 2), The New India Insurance Company Ltd Life Insurance Office, Pandri Raipur, Thana Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............Non Applicant No. 3/insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.- 05-J-1788, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (12.11.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 15.10.2018 passed by the 4th Additional Claims Tribunal, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.430/2017 whereby a compensation of Rs.3,22,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 24.01.2017 at about 10:55 P.M., when Mohan Dewangan, along with Pushpendra Dewangan and Ramgulal Dewangan, was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration no. CG-05/4742. While they were proceeding on the Raipur–Bhakhara Road near Village Semra turn, a vehicle bearing registration no. CG-05/J-1788, driven by Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and violently collided with the said motorcycle. As a result of the said impact, the rider and the pillion riders sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle no. CG-05/J-1788, for 3 which the respondents are jointly and severally liable. However, the Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim, erred in correctly assessing and determining the just and fair amount of compensation, thereby awarding an inadequate sum, which deserves to be enhanced by this Hon’ble Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in disbelieving the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, who were duly examined in support of their pleadings. The rejection of their statements amounts to a failure in appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the Tribunal has failed to consider the income of the deceased. In the present case, a income of the deceased would be Rs.6,206/- instead of Rs.6,000/- as per Minimum Wages Act. In light of the precedents set by this Hon’ble Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others 1 . It ought to have considered that the deceased left behind wife and his children making a total of three dependents. The findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside. The Tribunal’s conclusions run contrary to the documentary evidence and oral testimony on record, reflecting a failure to properly consider the facts in their correct perspective. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, does not warrant 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 any interference in this regard the Tribunal has further erred in deducting one-half of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, whereas, considering the number of dependents, the appropriate deduction should have been one-third. In light of the above, the claimants respectfully pray that the impugned award be set aside and the claim be enhanced as per the submissions made herein. 4. The learned counsel for the owner respectfully submits that the impugned award passed by the Learned Tribunal is just, proper, and in accordance with law, and therefore, does not call for any interference or enhancement by this Hon’ble Court. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent Insurance Company that in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal requires no interference of this Court and no further enhancement is required to be made, therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed. 6. I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. 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. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of 5 Rs.3,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from working as daily wager and no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, Therefore, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it that the trial Court has erred in assessing the income of the Rs.6,000/- which would be Rs.6,207/- as the income of the deceased, at the relevant time of accident. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.74,484/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra). 10. The deceased was aged about 61 years and was married and the claimants are the parents and children of the deceased so in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , 2 and Pranay Sethi (supra), the Tribunal has erred in deducting one-half of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, whereas, considering the number of dependents this Court deems it appropriate to grant deduction towards personal expenses be 1/3 which comes to Rs.24,828/- (Rs.74,484/- / 3 = Rs.24,828/-), the annual income comes to Rs.49,656/-. Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 7 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.3,47,592/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years), for funeral expenses Rs. 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years) and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, 3 the claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/- (10% increase in every three years) each i.e. Rs.1,44,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,27,592/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors 4 , this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- Sn. Heads Calculation 01 Income of the Deceased Rs.74,484/- (Rs.6,207/- x 12) 02 Deduction 1/3 Rs.24,828/- (Rs.74,484 - 1/3) 03 Total Income of the Deceased Rs.49,656 /- (74,484/- – Rs.24,828/-) 04 Multiplier of 7 Rs.3,47,592/- (Rs.49,656 x 7) 05 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 06 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 07 Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs.48,000/- x 4 Rs. 1,44,000/- Total Rs.5,27,592/- 11. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.5,27,592 /- from Rs.3,22,000/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,05,592/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (7.5% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 12. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 3 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 4 (2011) 1 SCC 343 7 15.10.2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the condition of the award shall remain intact. 13. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena