1 2025:CGHC:53984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 965 of 2018 1 - Heera Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Ramsahay Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Masna (Tharakpur), Police Station And Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohan Sahu S/o Late Ramsahay Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Masna (Tharakpur), Police Station And Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ishwar Prasad Sahu S/o Late Ramsahay Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Masna (Tharakpur), Police Station And Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Fatte Kumar Palke S/o Sukrit Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Kalar Tarai, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.10 W 0151), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Parmeshwar Singh Thakur S/o Chamra Singh Thakur R/o Village Pandakapa, Post Bija, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.10 W 0151), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - H.D.F.C. Agro General Insurance Company Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.10 W 0151), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 04.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 26.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 303/2017 2. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 9,34,400/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of the deceased/Ramsahay Sahu in an accident that took place on 09.02.2017, when he went to Podi-Ratanpur along with Harendra Kashyap in the motorcycle and when they reached nearby Ramnagar-Kota main road, at that time, driver of the offending vehicle/ tractor bearing Registration No. C.G. 10-W-0151 by rash and negligent driving and came from wrong side and dashed the said motorcycle driven by the deceased and on account of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his body and died on the spot. The accident was reported to the Police Station- Kota against respondent No.1/driver for offence under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC. 3. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased Ramsahay was 45 years of age, working as Contractor (Thekedar) from which earned Rs. 20,000/- per month. The claimants were totally dependent upon the earning of the deceased as he was the sole bread winner of the family as such, they claimed a total sum of Rs.30,75,000/- with interest as compensation under various heads. 4. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal 3 has awarded a meager amount as compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as notional income of Rs. 6,210/- p.m, whereas there was evidence and also pleading to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month ought to have been assessed by the learned Tribunal as the appellant was doing work of contractor. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded less compensation under the other heads. Thus, the appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 supporting the award impugned submits that the learned Tribunal minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper according to the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 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. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 9,34,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs. 8,69,400/- towards total loss of dependency, Rs. 10,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral 4 expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded the total sum of Rs. 9,34,400/- 10.As regards income of the deceased, though the claimants/appellants have pleaded that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a contractor, but no documentary or oral evidence in support thereof has been adduced. Therefore, in these circumstances, in absence of any proof regarding income, the income of the deceased Ramsahay as a semi- skilled labour is considered as Rs. 6,388/- per month as per minimum wages at the relevant time. 11. In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side in the other heads also and the same requires reconsideration. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the compensation in the following manner S. No. Head Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Income of the deceased 6,388x12= 76,656/- 2. 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased 76,656-25,552/- = 51,104/- p.a. 3. 25% above to be added towards future prospects 51,104+12,776/-=63,880/- 4. Multiplier applied 14 5. Total loss of dependency 8,94,320/- 6. For loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1. and parents consortium to appellant Nos. 2 and 3 with 10% increase in every three years. 48,000/- each i.e., Total Rs. 1,44,000/- 5 7. For loss of estate with 10% increase in every three years 18,000/- 8. For funeral expenses with 10% increase in every three years. 18,000/- Total compensation awarded 10,74,320/- 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimants/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.10,74,320/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 9,34,400/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 1,39,920/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned award to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL