1 2025:CGHC:50052 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1866 of 2019  Gajadhar Minj (Dead) Through Legal Heirs 1. Anil Minj S/o Gajadhar Minj Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Regada, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Kamal Minj S/o Gajadhar Minj Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Regada, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Sarita Minj D/o Gajadhar Minj Aged About 26 Years R/o Rumkera, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Urmila Minj D/o Gajadhar Minj Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Regada, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Santosh Rathiya S/o Anandram Rathiya Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kachaar Police Station - Bhupdeopur, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Pawan Kumar Rathiya S/o Shyam Kumar Rathiya Aged About 26 Years R/o Singhitarai Police Station Dabra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. Branch Manager Through I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Bilaspur Office- I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Office, Shop No. 05, 2nd Floor, V.R. Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.10 .2025 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.09 18:33:49 +0530 2 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh in Claim Case No. 09/2016 dated 27.09.2018, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% in favour of the claimants on account of death of Sunil Minj. 2. The facts in brief are that on 18.03.2012 at about 6:00 pm deceased Sunil Minj was going to his house along with his elder brother on a motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 13 R 5675. The respondent No. 1 driving the offending unregistered Hero Honda Splender rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, consequently, he sustained grievous injuries and during course of treatment died in hospital. 3. Initially claim case was filed by father of the deceased, wherein, it was pleaded that the deceased was working as labourer and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is also pleaded that at the time of accident his age was 22 years. He claimed a sum of Rs. 27,11,050/-. 4. During the pendency of claim case, father of the deceased died and brothers and sisters were impleaded as claimants. 5. The respondents filed their reply and denied averments made in claim application. The learned Tribunal framed issues. The parties led evidence, and thereafter, the learned Tribunal passed award. As the driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving licence; therefore, the learned Tribunal directed the Insurance company to pay the amount of compensation and recover it from driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate appearing for the claimants/appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while awarding meager compensation on account of death of Sunil Minj. He would further submit that brothers and sisters were dependent on the income of the deceased; therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded 3 compensation in accordance with the law. He would also submit that on conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation to the claimants. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards medical expenses incurred in treatment of the deceased. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that father of the deceased was a dependent, who died during the pendency of the claim application, and thereafter, the elder brothers and sisters of the deceased were impleaded as claimants. They would further submit that the elder brothers and sisters are married and they are well settled. They would contend that they were not dependent on income of the deceased; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly passed an award to the tune of Rs. 80,000/-. They would further contend that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased motorcycle, therefore, the learned Tribunal deducted 50% compensation on that ground. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Admittedly, the father of the deceased, namely, Gajadhar Minj was dependent upon the deceased, but he died during the pendency of the claim application, and thereafter, his two sons and two daughters were impleaded as claimants. It is not in dispute that sibling of the deceased were older and were married with their own respective families and they were not dependent on the deceased earnings. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly considered this issue and decided it against the claimants. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 40,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- for attendant, and thus, total Rs. 80,000/- was awarded. As there 4 was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased; therefore, the learned Tribunal deducted 50% and passed an award to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-. As there was no dependent; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly not assessed the dependency part. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Company Limited V. Anand Pal reported in AIR ONLINE 2023 SC 1286, in para 4 & 5 held as under :- “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 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.” 11. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the present case, it can safely be held that the learned Tribunal rightly passed award of Rs. 40,000/- in favour of the claimants. 12. Perusal of the record would show that Rs. 1,23,840/- was incurred in 5 treatment of the deceased as he was hospitalized at Narayana Hospital, Raipur from 22.03.2012 to 02.04.2012. The document in this regard was exhibited by the claimants as Ex. P/28, but the learned Tribunal failed to honour it; therefore, this appeal is partly allowed directing the respondents to make payment of an additional amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- against medical expenses to the claimants within a period of 60 days. 13. The Insurance company shall be at liberty to recover it from the driver and owner of the vehicle after making its payment. 14. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant