1 2025:CGHC:51437 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 612 of 2018 1 - Smt. Asha Bai Wd/o Late Laxminarayan Dhidhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Uslapur, Post Sambalpur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Surendra Kumar S/o Late Laxminarayan Dhidhi Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Uslapur, Post Sambalpur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Tarini D/o Late Laxminarayan Dhidhi Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Asha Bai Wd/o Laxminarayan Dhidhi, R/o Village Uslapur, Post Sambalpur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kumari Malti D/o Late Laxminarayan Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Asha Bai Wd/o Laxminarayan Dhidhi, R/o Village Uslapur, Post Sambalpur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Tijiya Bai W/o Shri Babulal Dhidhi Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Uslapur, Post Sambalpur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 6 - Babulal Dhidhi S/o Late Punauram Dhidhi Aged About 68 Years R/o ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Village Uslapur, Post Sambalpur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rajkumar Chandrakar S/o Late Ishwarlal Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No.6 Gandhi Chowk, Kalarpara Kurud, Post And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Driver Cum Owner Of Offending Vehicle Maruti Van Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 H 2841), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited M.B.Trade Center Makai Chowk Dhamtari, Post Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Maruti Van Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 H 2841), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devanshi Charaborty, Advocate on behalf of Mr. H. A. P. S Bhatiya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (15.10.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No.39/2017 whereby a compensation of Rs.7,53,532/- with interest @ 06% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that As per the brief facts of the case, on 02.01.2017, the deceased 3 Laxminarayan Dhidhi was travelling from Dhamtari to Village Uslapur on his TVS Super XL vehicle, and upon reaching the vicinity of Sehra Dabri, he was struck by a Maruti Van bearing registration number CG- 04-H-2841, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Respondent No. 1, who is also the owner of the said vehicle. As a result of the impact, the deceased fell from his vehicle, sustained multiple grievous injuries, and was immediately shifted to the hospital, where he succumbed during treatment. Following his untimely demise, the claimants, being his legal representatives, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of ₹18,50,000/-, asserting that the deceased was working as a vegetable vendor earning approximately ₹300/- per day. In response, Respondent No. 1 denied liability and alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, while also contending that the vehicle was insured with Respondent No. 2, and was being plied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, thereby shifting liability onto the insurer. Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, filed a written statement denying the averments of the claimants and asserting that the insured vehicle was being used in violation of policy terms, and therefore, the insurer was not liable to indemnify the claim. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed five issues for determination, and upon appreciation of the evidence on record, decided all issues in favour of the claimants. However, the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal was found to be inadequate and not commensurate with the loss suffered, thereby giving 4 rise to the present Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) seeking enhancement of the awarded amount. 4. When the claim application for compensation was filed by the present appellants/claimants of deceased before the Claims Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of the alleged vehicle, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.4,264/- per month i.e. Rs.51,168/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 46 years and the claimants are the mother, father, son, two daughters and wife of the deceased future prospect was considered as 25% (Rs.4,264/- + Rs.1,066/- = Rs.5,330/-) and the deduction was 1/4 towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.15,990/- total income would be Rs.47,964/-. After applying multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency calculated to Rs. 6,23,610/- and on other heads Rs.75,000/- has been calculated, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- and awarded total compensation of Rs.7,53,532.00/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal erroneously assessed his monthly income. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in deducting one-fourth (1/4) of the deceased’s income towards personal expenses, despite there being six dependents in the present case; as per the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Others [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , the appropriate deduction in such cases 5 ought to be one-sixth (1/6). Additionally, the Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased’s income, which is contrary to the mandate of the aforesaid judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court directed that an addition towards future prospects must be made even in cases involving self-employed or fixed-income individuals below the age of 50. Moreover, the Tribunal did not award just and reasonable compensation under conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, consortium, and loss of love and affection, resulting in a grossly inadequate and unjust award. The impugned award, being contrary to law and the evidence on record, is therefore liable to be modified and enhanced appropriately. 6. 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. 7. I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. 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. 6 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.6,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and working as daily wager, and there is no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, Therefore, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate that the income of the deceased should be Rs.4,264/- as per minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.51,168/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra). 12. The deceased was aged about 46 years and was married and the claimants are the mother, father, wife 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 , 1 and Pranay Sethi (supra), after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.51,168/- + Rs.12,792/- = Rs.63,960/-, deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th which comes to Rs.15,990/- (Rs.63,960/- / 4 = Rs.15,990/-), the annual income comes to Rs.47,970/-. Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 13 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.6,23,610/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years), for funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years) and as per Magma General Insurance 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 7 Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, 2 the claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/- (10% increase in every three years) each i.e. Rs.2,88,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,47,610/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors 3 , this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- Sn. Heads Calculation 01 Income of the Deceased Rs.51,168/- (Rs.4,264/- x 12) 02 Future Prospect 25% Rs.12,792/- (Rs.51,168/- x 25%) 03 Deduction 1/4 Rs.15,990/- (Rs. 63,960 / 1/4) 04 Total Income of the Deceased Rs.47,970 /- (63,960/- – Rs.15,990/-) 05 Multiplier of 13 Rs.6,23,610/- (Rs.47,970/- x 13) 06 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 07 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 08 Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs.48,000/- x 6 Rs. 2,88,000/- Total Rs.9,47,610/- 13. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.9,47,610/- from Rs.7,53,532/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.1,64,078/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 14. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 08.12.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the 2 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 3 (2011) 1 SCC 343 8 terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena