1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 627 of 2018 1 - Smt. Saroj Verma Wd/o Late Nohar Verma Aged About 38 Years R/o Damadpara, Jagmohan Lal, Near High School, Siltara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kamini Verma D/o Late Nohar Verma Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Saroj Verma, Wd/o Late Nohar Verma, R/o Damadpara, Jagmohan Lal, Near High School, Siltara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Saurabh Verma S/o Late Nohar Verma Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Saroj Verma, Wd/o Late Nohar Verma, R/o Damadpara, Jagmohan Lal, Near High School, Siltara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Bisahin Bai Verma Wd/o Late Kunjuram Verma Aged About 65 Years R/o Damadpara, Jagmohan Lal, Near High School, Siltara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ramlal Adil S/o Late Nathuram Adil R/o Village Neurdeeh, P.S. Dharsiwa, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle Ostro No. Cg 04 Hp 9138), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - I.C.I. Lobard Motor Insurance Company Limited Through The ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Authorized Officer, I.C.Ki. Lobard Motor Insurance Company, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Ostro No. Cg 04 Hp 9138), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (12.11.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 05.03.2018 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in MACC No.455/2016 whereby a compensation of Rs.12,60,246/- with interest @ 09% 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 it is an admitted fact that Respondent No. 2 is the Insurance Company and Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. The Appellants, being the legal heirs of deceased Nohar Verma, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation of ₹70,50,000/- on account of the death of Nohar Verma. As per the prosecution story, on 07.06.2015, between 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., Respondent No. 1 was driving his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG04HP 9138 in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle of the deceased near Mandhar Tekari, P.S. Vidhansabha, causing grievous injuries to Nohar Verma on his head, 3 chest, hands, and legs. He was immediately shifted to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur, where he succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment. The Appellants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, sought compensation from the Respondents. Respondent No. 1, in his written statement, denied the allegations, contending that the accident did not occur with his motorcycle and that the deceased fell on the road on his own. He further claimed that he possessed a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No. 2. Conversely, Respondent No. 2 – the Insurance Company – in its reply, denied the liability, contending that Respondent No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and that the motorcycle was not insured as per the terms of the policy, thereby seeking exoneration from liability. Upon considering the pleadings, evidence, and arguments advanced by both parties, the learned Claims Tribunal, vide its award dated 05.03.2018, awarded a total compensation of ₹12,60,246/- in favour of the Appellants. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the award. 4. When the claim application for compensation was filed by the present 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.5,000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 39 years and the claimants are the mother, wife and children of the deceased, the 4 future prospect applied to 40% by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.24,000/- (Rs.60,000/- x 40%) which would be Rs.84,000/- and the deduction was ¼th towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.63,000/- total income would be Rs.1,66,410/-. After applying multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency calculated to Rs. 10,08,000/-. The medical expenses calculated by the Tribunal is Rs.1,62,246/- and on other heads Rs.90,000/- has been calculated and awarded total compensation of Rs.12,60,246/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in disbelieving the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, who were duly examined in support of their pleadings. The rejection of their statements amounts to a failure in appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the Tribunal has failed to consider the income of the deceased. In the present case, a income of the deceased would be Rs.5,787/- instead of Rs.5,000/- as per Minimum Wages Act. In light of the precedents set by this Hon’ble Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others 1 . It ought to have considered that the deceased left behind mother, wife and his children making a total of four dependents. The findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside. The Tribunal’s 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 conclusions run contrary to the documentary evidence and oral testimony on record, reflecting a failure to properly consider the facts in their correct perspective. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum, does not warrant any interference in this regard. In light of the above, the claimants respectfully pray that the impugned award be set aside and the claim be enhanced as per the submissions made herein. 6. Learned counsel for the owner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in its appreciation of the evidence. The offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company and the vehicle was not driven in contravention of the insurance policy. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to properly consider that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. Further, the learned Tribunal overlooked the fact that there was contributory negligence on the part deceased, which materially contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the owner may be exonerated by fastening the liability upon the insurance company as the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company. 7. 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. 6 8. I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. 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. 10. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.12,60,246/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 11. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from working as daily wager and no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, Therefore, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it that the trial Court has erred in assessing the income of the Rs.5,000/- which would be Rs.5,787/-as the income of the deceased, at the relevant time of accident. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.69,444/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra). 12. The deceased was aged about 39 years and was married and the claimants are the parents 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 , 2 and Pranay Sethi (supra), after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 7 Rs.69,444/- + Rs.27,778/- = Rs.97,222/- (Rs.69,444/- x 40/100 = Rs.27,778/-), deduction towards personal expenses would be 25% which comes to Rs.72,917/- (Rs.97,222/- / 4 = Rs.24,305/-), the annual income comes to Rs.72,917/-. Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 16 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.11,66,672/-. 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 Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, 3 the claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/- (10% increase in every three years) each i.e. Rs.1,92,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,03,004/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors 4 , this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- Sn. Heads Calculation 01 Income of the Deceased Rs.69,444/- (Rs.5,787/- x 12) 02 Future Prospect 40% Rs.27,778/- (Rs.69,444/- x 40%) 03 Deduction ¼ Rs.24,305/- (Rs.97,222 - 25%) 04 Total Income of the Deceased Rs.72,917/- (97,222/- – Rs.24,305/-) 05 Multiplier of 16 Rs.11,66,672/- (Rs.2,49,615 x 16) 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. 1,92,000/- 3 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 4 (2011) 1 SCC 343 8 Rs.48,000/- x 4 09 Medical Expenses Rs.1,62,246/- Total Rs.15,56,918/- 13. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.15,56,918/- from Rs.12,60,246/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,96,672/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (9% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 14. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 05.03.2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the condition of the award shall remain intact. 16. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena