1 2025:CGHC:60134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1036 of 2017 1 - Smt. Sukhmati W/o Lati Ram, Aged About 58 Years 2 - Narsingh Dhruw (Died) Legal Heirs, 2.A Smt. Chandrika Bai Wd/o Narshing Dhruw, Aged About 40 Years 2.B Kiran D/o Narshing Dhruw, Aged About 21 Years 2.C Kirti Dhruw D/o Narshing Dhruw, Aged About 22 Years 2.D - Krishna Kumar D/o Narshing Dhruw, Aged About 18 Years 2.E - Mulshankar S/o Narshing Dhruw, Aged About 19 Years 3 - Gyanchand Dhruw S/o Lati Ram, Aged About 33 Years All are R/o Shaktipara, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Now District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh). ... Appellants versus 1 - Vimal Kumar S/o Aashish Ram Yadav, Aged About 35 Years R/o Pangaon, Police Station and Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhijram Verma S/o Nand Ram Verma, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Barda, Post Lawan, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Now District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Proprietor Umesh Agrawal, Agrawal Motors, Near Civil Lines, Chowk, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.12 13:13:29 +0530 2 4 - Bablu Dewangan S/o P.R.Dewangan, R/o In Front of Vivekanand Ashram Raipur, Police Station and Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : None For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 10.12.2025 1. No one appeared on behalf of the appellants to contest this appeal even in two rounds. Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 is present. 2. Since the present appeal pertains to an accident of the year 2009 and the appeal itself has been pending since 2017, this Court deems it appropriate to heard the matter finally. 3. The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 23.02.2017, passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.22/2011, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application of the claimants and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants No.1 and 2 therein, i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 herein, jointly and severally. 3 4. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 11.04.2009 at about 07:45 PM, the deceased Latiram Dhruv was returning to his home and when he reached in front of the Post Office, Balodabazar, the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-06/3063 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), driven by non-applicant No.1 – Vimal Yadav, allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed the deceased, resulting in grievous internal injuries on his face, chest and head. He was immediately taken to the Primary Health Centre, Balodabazar, and thereafter referred to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, where he succumbed to his injuries the same night. 5. The claimants being legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition before the learned Claims tribunal pleading therein that on the date of accident, the deceased was employed as a Peon in the Government College, Balodabazar, earning Rs.9,100/- per month, and also had agricultural land and a house at village Shukla Bhatha, from which he earned an additional Rs.15,000/- per month. He was the sole breadwinner of his family and the claimants were fully dependent upon his income. As such, they claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,20,000/- from the non-applicants jointly and severally. 6. Non-applicant No.1, in his reply, has denied negligence and pleaded that he was driving the motorcycle slowly and cautiously, whereas the deceased, who was allegedly under the influence of 4 alcohol, suddenly attempted to cross the road without taking due care and fell on his own. It is stated that he was not dashed by the motorcycle and that the injuries, if any, were due to his own fall. Non-applicant No.1 claims to be a valid licence holder and contends that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. 7. Non-applicant No.2, in his written statement, has pleaded that he had already sold/exchanged the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle No. CG-06/3063 about four years prior to the accident, i.e., on 12.02.2005, to Agarwal Motors through Proprietor Umesh Kumar Agarwal, Balodabazar, for a sum of Rs.12,000/-, and had executed an agreement transferring possession and responsibility of the said vehicle. It is contended that after the sale, the offending vehicle remained in possession of Proprietor Umesh Kumar Agarwal, who is a necessary party to the proceedings. Therefore, non-applicant No.2 claims no liability for the alleged accident. 8. Non-applicant No.3, in his reply, has contended that as on 22.04.2005, the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle No. CG-06/3063 was one Bablu Dewangan, who had purchased the offending vehicle from non-applicant No.3, and hence non- applicant No.3 bears no responsibility. It is further pleaded that the claim amount is excessive and unsupported by documents. 9. No reply has been filed on behalf of non-applicant No.4. 10. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, as well as oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective 5 parties, learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and evidence brought on record, resulting in an erroneous conclusion fastening liability upon him. It is urged that respondent No.1 had specifically denied any act of rashness or negligence and had consistently maintained that he was driving the motorcycle slowly and cautiously. The deceased, who was allegedly under the influence of alcohol, suddenly attempted to cross the road without exercising due care and fell on his own, and the injuries sustained by him were not the result of any dash by the motorcycle. Respondent No.1 is a duly licensed driver and, therefore, no liability could be attributed to him. 12. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate these undisputed facts and has recorded findings without proper evaluation of the material available on record. Hence, the impugned award requires reconsideration and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is liable to be set aside. 13. I have heard learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 6 14. From perusal of the impugned award, it transpires that the learned Tribunal, upon a detailed consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on record, framed the necessary issues and recorded well-reasoned findings thereon. 15. On Issue No.1, the Tribunal, relying upon the testimony of PW-2, an eyewitness, duly corroborated by the FIR (Ex. A-2), charge- sheet and other contemporaneous documents, held that the accident dated 11.04.2009 occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1/respondent No.1, who was driving the offending vehicle in a careless manner, resulting in the fatal injuries and subsequent death of Latiram. The Tribunal disbelieved the defence set up by non-applicant No.1/respondent No.1, particularly in view of his own admission in cross- examination regarding the filing of charge-sheet against him for negligent driving. 16. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal concluded that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased, as their status remained undisputed and stood proved through oral evidence. 17. On Issue No.3, the Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 65 years on the basis of the postmortem report, computed his monthly income at Rs.4,000/- keeping in view the absence of documents proving continued service, applied the correct multiplier of 7, and awarded Rs.1,68,000/- towards loss of dependency, along with conventional sums under the heads of 7 funeral expenses and loss of consortium/love and affection, thereby determining the total compensation at Rs.2,43,000/-. 18. The Tribunal further examined the question of liability and, upon analysing Exhibits NA-1 and NA-2 as well as the oral evidence regarding the alleged sale of the vehicle, observed that no valid transfer in accordance with law had been proved and that the registered owner continued to be non-applicant No.2/respondent No.2. Consequently, both respondent No.1, the driver, and respondent No.2, the registered owner, who are respondents No.1 and 2 herein were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 19. In fatal accident claims, the primary object of the Motor Vehicles Act is to ensure that the dependants of the deceased are granted just and reasonable compensation for the pecuniary and non- pecuniary loss suffered by them due to the untimely death of the breadwinner. The determination of compensation in a death case involves assessing the income of the deceased, the extent of his contribution to the family, the number of dependants, their financial dependence, and the age of the deceased. 20. In the present case, the fact that Latiram Dhruv died on the same night of the accident is undisputed. The deceased was employed as a peon at the Government College and taking monthly pension of Rs.4,000/- as rightly held by the Claims Tribunal, making him 8 the sole source of financial support for the claimants. His sudden demise has resulted in complete deprivation of livelihood and support to the family. Therefore, while awarding compensation, the loss of dependency as well as conventional sums towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium must be reasonably assessed to ensure that the claimants are adequately compensated for the irreparable loss suffered due to the death of the sole earning member of the family. 21. As such, this Court proceeds to reassess the amount of compensation afresh, keeping in view the age and income of the deceased, the number of dependants, the extent of financial loss suffered by the claimants, and the principles governing the award of just and reasonable compensation in fatal accident cases. 22. Though the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.48,000/- per annum, it has committed an error in deducting ½ towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. As held in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, where the number of dependants is three, the appropriate deduction towards personal and living expenses is 1/3rd and not ½. Accordingly, in the considered view of this Court, the deduction of ½ made by the Claims Tribunal is erroneous, and the correct deduction that ought to have been applied is 1/3rd of the annual income of the deceased. 9 23. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 65 years at the time of the accident. The evidence on record further shows that he had already superannuated from service and was receiving pension. In terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the addition towards future prospects is ordinarily permissible only where the deceased was in regular employment with a likelihood of future increments, or in the case of self-employed persons below 60 years of age. Once a person has crossed the age of 60 years and is receiving pension, there remains no scope for future increments or career advancement. Consequently, no enhancement towards future prospects can be granted. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position and the age and employment status of the deceased, this Court finds that the claimants are not entitled to any addition towards future prospects. 24. In view of the above, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly reckoned the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-, i.e. Rs.48,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.32,000/-. After applying the multiplier of 7 as rightly applied by learned Claims Tribunal, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.2,24,000/-. 10 25. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium in view of the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2020) 11 SCC 1. 26. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.4,000/- per month Rs.48,000/- per annum 2. 1/3 of (1) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 48,000 / 3 = = Rs.32,000/- 3. Compensation after 32,000 x 7 Rs.2,24,000/- 11 multiplier of 7 applied 4. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 5. Towards loss of consortium to the three claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.1,44,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.4,04,000/- 27. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,04,000/-. After deducting Rs.2,43,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.1,61,000/-. 28. As such, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1,61,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 29. Since it is an admitted fact that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle, i.e., motorcycle No. CG-06/3063, was duly registered and under the control of respondent No.1 (the driver) and respondent No.2 (the registered owner), both of whom were held jointly and severally liable by the learned Claims Tribunal, the 12 respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation as modified by this Court to the claimants within a period of 60 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 30. Resultantly, the instant appeal is partly allowed. 31. Since none has appeared on behalf of the claimants, in spite of due notice, it is directed that the enhancement of compensation be intimated to the claimants at their given address through the concerned District Legal Services Authority, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (‘DLSA’). The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the claimants as well as to the concerned DLSA, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh with a further direction to ensure that the claimants may receive the enhanced compensation upon filing suitable proof before the concerned learned Claims Tribunal. 32. Record of the concerned Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh