1 2025:CGHC:50065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 460 of 2021 1 - Janma Jay Sagar S/o Shri Jaduram Sagar Aged About 33 Years R/o Railway Colony, Behind School, Bacheli, Thana Bacheli, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kishan Kumar S/o Kunvar Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o Mailawada, Chimlipara, Thana Kuakonda, District South Bastar Dantewada, C.G. (Driver Of Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 18-H/1860), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vivek Kesharwani S/o Kalmukund Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Bacheli, Thana Bacheli, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 18- H/1860)., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - United Insurance Company Limited Anupama Chowk Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. (Insurer Company, Insurance Police No. 2701023115p101174853)., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri J.K. Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.10.2025 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The appellant/ claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 15.6.2021, passed in Claim Case No.11 of 2018 by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District South Bastar Dantewada, whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Abhay Sagar. 2. The facts of the present case are that on 7.1.2016, deceased Abhay Sagar was going to railway colony Bacheli alongwith Shahbaj Khan on a motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.18 K 7217. Near Badepara nala, Bacheli, driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.18 H 1860 by driving rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased sustained injuries and died during the course of treatment. 3. Initially, the claim petition was filed by the father and the present appellant, namely Janma Jay Sagar wherein it was stated that the age of the deceased was 36 years and he was earning Rs.15,000/- as a diesel mechanic. During the pendency of the claim application, the father of the deceased died. The respondents filed their reply and denied the averments made in the claim application. Learned Tribunal framed issues, the parties led their evidence and the learned Tribunal passed an award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant/ claimant was dependent on the income of the deceased and thus, the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law by treating him non- dependent on the income of the deceased. He would contend that the 3 learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- only and on other conventional heads, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the father of the deceased has already died and appellant – Janma Jay Sagar is a married person, who was not dependent on the income of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly held that he was not a dependent on the income of the deceased. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Anand Pal, reported in AIRONLINE 2023 SC 1286, held as follows in paragraphs 4 & 5: “4. In support of his contention, Mr. Kumar relies on Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (AIR 2009 SC 3104) where this Court held as under: "31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as 4 dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father." 5. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents as because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.” 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant is a married person with his own income. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that he was not dependent on the income of the deceased. The claimant failed to produce evidence to establish dependency on the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 6% to the appellant/ claimant. 9. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anand Pal (supra) and the facts of the present case, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi