1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1163 of 2017 1 - A. V. S. Rama Rao S/o Late Bhanumurti, Aged About 73 Years R/o Behind Jain Bhawan, Sikshit Nagar, B. M. Y. Charoda, Police Station Bhilai- 3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - A. Shakuntla Devi, W/o A. V. S. Rama Rao, Aged About 68 Years R/o Behind Jain Bhawan, Sikshit Nagar, B. M. Y. Charoda, Police Station Bhilai- 3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - A. Santosh S/o Late A. D. S. Prasad, Aged About 23 Years R/o Behind Jain Bhawan, Sikshit Nagar, B. M. Y. Charoda, Police Station Bhilai- 3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - A. Sandeep S/o Late A. D. S. Prasad, Aged About 19 Years R/o Behind Jain Bhawan, Sikshit Nagar, B. M. Y. Charoda, Police Station Bhilai- 3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh....Claimants., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Parimal Rai S/o Biseshwar Rai, R/o Azad Chowk, Bhilai- 3, Police Station Bhilai- 3, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh....Driver Of Vehicle Trailer C. G. 07, Z C 3912., Chhattisgarh 2 - Balinder Singh, S/o Late Bhagwan Singh, R/o 8/2, North Vasundharanagar, Charoda, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh...Owner Of Vehicle Trailer C. G. 07, Z C 3912., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Office Branch No. 1, Butani Complex, G. E. Road, Power House Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh....Insurer Of Vehicle Trailer C. G. 07, Z C 3912., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants :- Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 12.11.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 10.01.2017 passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Claims Case No. 31/2016, whereby a total compensation of ₹46,78,602/- was awarded to the claimant from the date of application till realization, fastening the liability upon the non-applicants No.3. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, the deceased Late A.D.S. Prasad was working as Loco Pilot (Passenger) Grade-II in the Electrical Department of South Eastern Central Railways and on 17.10.2012 at about 2:30 PM, while he was travelling with his wife on his motorcycle (Honda Ambition bearing registration no. CG-07-LF- 7690) on Raipur–Bhilai Road near M.P. Dhaba, Tatibandh, a trailer vehicle bearing registration no. CG-07-ZC-3912, driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against their motorcycle, causing both of them to fall and sustain grievous injuries, leading to the death of the deceased on the spot and his wife later during medical treatment. The appellant 3 thereafter filed a claim petition on 08.02.2013 under Sections 166(1) and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of ₹88,55,680/-, wherein the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, after due examination of evidence, awarded a compensation of ₹46,78,602/- by order dated 10.01.2017, which is annexed as Annexure A-1. The offending vehicle was driven by non- applicant No. 1, owned by non-applicant No. 2 and insured with non- applicant No. 3 (Insurance Company) at the time of the accident. 3. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After evaluating oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 10.01.2017, holding the appellants liable for payment of compensation. 4. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 38,706/- per month, i.e. Rs. 4,64,472/- per annum. After applying 1/4th deduction of the deceased’s income, Rs.3,48,354/- was come. By applying the multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency was computed at Rs. 45,28,602/-. In addition, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards Loss of Estate, Rs. 25,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, thereby making the total compensation amount Rs. 46,78,602/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that that the impugned award passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, is arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the settled principles 4 of law, as the compensation awarded is on the lower side and not in consonance with the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at ₹38,706/- per month instead of ₹64,214/-, which was his actual monthly salary as Loco Pilot (Passenger) Grade-II in the Electrical Department of South Eastern Central Railways. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not applying future prospect which should be applied 15% in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal also failed to apply the correct multiplier and made improper deductions without assigning any reason. Further, the amounts awarded under various heads, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages such as medical expenses, transportation, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, funeral expenses, and loss of love and affection, are meagre and unjustified. The learned Tribunal has not adhered to the guiding principle that compensation should be “just” so as to adequately restore the claimants to the position they were in prior to the accident. Hence, the appellant prays to enhance the compensation amount suitably in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/non- applicants supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, has rightly awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5 8. As regards future prospects, the Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, determined the age of the deceased to be 50 years & 5 months. However, learned Tribunal has not given any future prospect, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not just and proper. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has held that the appropriate addition towards future prospects for permanent-job employed persons between the age of 51 to 60 years is 15%. Therefore, in the present case, considering that the deceased was 50 years 5 months old, as assessed by the Tribunal, the applicable percentage for future prospects would be 15%. 9. Upon determining the monthly income of the deceased at ₹38,706/-, the annual income is computed at ₹4,64,472/- (₹38,706 x 12). In view of the settled legal position, an addition of 15% towards future prospects is justified and accordingly made to the established income. Thus, the annual income after such addition comes to ₹5,34,143/- (₹4,64,472 + ₹69,670). The deceased was aged about 50 years and 5 months at the time of the accident. As per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, considering that there were four dependents, a deduction of one-fourth (¼) is to be made towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, after deducting ₹1,33,536/-, the annual contribution to the family (dependency) would come to ₹4,00,607/-. Having regard to the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group of 51 to 60 years is ‘13’. Therefore, the total compensation under the head of loss of dependency is computed at ₹52,07,891/- (₹4,00,607 x 13). 6 10. With respect to the amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal under the conventional heads, it is noted that a sum of ₹25,000/- was awarded towards loss of estate and another ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In the considered opinion of this Court, the amounts so awarded are on the higher side. Accordingly, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same are modified to ₹18,000/- each under both the said heads. Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. , AIR 2020 SC 3076, a 10% enhancement every three years is required to be applied in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. , (2018) 18 SCC 130 , has explained that consortium is of three kinds : — “(i) Spousal Consortium (payable to the surviving spouse), (ii) Parental Consortium (payable to the children on the death of parents), and (iii) Filial Consortium (payable to the parents on the death of children).” 11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, each of the claimants is held entitled to a sum of ₹48,000/- (inclusive of the 10% enhancement every three years) towards loss of consortium. On the basis of above reassessment, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- 7 Sn. Heads Compensation 01 Annual Income of Deceased Rs.4,64,472/- 02 Future Prospect 15% Rs.69,670/- 03 Deduction ¼ Rs. 1,33,536/- 04 Total Annual Income Rs.4,00,607/- 05 Multiplier of 13 Rs.52,07,891 06 Loss of Estate (10% enhancement in every three years) Rs.18,000/- 07 Funeral Expenses (10% enhancement in every three years) Rs18,000/- 08 Loss of Consortium Rs.48,000 x 4 Rs.1,92,000 Total Rs.54,35,891/- 12. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.46,78,602/-, after deducting the enhanced amount of Rs.54,35,891/-, the claimants/ appellants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.7,57,289/- which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha