-1- 2025:CGHC:42410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 270 of 2020 Doman Singh Beldar S/o Shri Bhagat Singh Beldar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Achholi, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Ramesrin Saytode Wd/o Late Bhagirathi Saytode Aged About 49 Years 2 - Tijan Saytode D/o Late Bhagirathi Saytode Aged About 26 Years 3 - Mahendra Saytode S/o Late Bhagirathi Saytode Aged About 16 Years Respondent No.3 being Minor, Through His Legal Guardian Mother Ramesrin All R/o Village And Post Sundravan, Police Station Gidhpuri, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Shidhdi Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arvind Dubey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.23 10:53:18 +0530 -2- 21 /08/2025 Heard. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant/non-applicant (owner and driver of the offending vehicle) challenging the award dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Motor Accidents Claim Case No.105 of 2019. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 09.06.2018, Narendra Saytode came to his sister's house in village Laja on his elder brother’s motorcycle CD Deluxe No. CG 04 LM 4393 and from there he went to village Khorsi on his motorcycle with Toran for some work. While returning back, at about 8:00 pm, a blue coloured Sonalika tractor dashed motorcycle of deceased Narendra Saytode from the front and caused accident. As a result, Narendra Saytode suffered severe injuries on his face, hands, legs and waist. Toran, who was sitting pillion, received injuries on his face, hands and waist. They were admitted to Balaji Hospital Raipur for treatment, however, during course of treatment, Narendra Saytode succumbed to injuries. At the time of accident, deceased Narendra Saytode was a healthy person of 19 years and was only person to maintain his family. He was working as a Mason and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. Due to untimely death of Narendra Saytode, applicants claimed total sum of Rs. 33,87,000/- under various heads from non- applicants. -3- 3. Non-applicant, driver and owner of the offending vehicle by filing his written statement denied all the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that deceased himself drove the vehicle carelessly after consuming alcohol and caused accident by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant in which Narendra Kumar Saytode suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that in the accident deceased was also contributory negligent to the extent of 50%, computed and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,90,580/-, fastening liability to pay amount of compensation on appellant/non-applicant, Owner and Driver of offending vehicle. 5. Sole contention of learned counsel for appellant is that amount computed and awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is on higher side. Learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in assessing income of deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month notionally which is on higher side. Award of future prospect of 40% and application of multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also erroneous. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants supports the impugned award. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of claim case. -4- 8. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to assessment of income as Rs.6000/- per month by the Claims Tribunal is to be on higher side is concerned, undisputedly, date of accident is 09.06.2018. In claim application, claimants have pleaded occupation of deceased as Mason and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Learned Claims Tribunal in absence of admissible evidence regarding occupation and income of deceased, assessed monthly income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month notionally, which in the opinion of this Court does not call for any interference looking to factors like cost of living, price index, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident. 9. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 19 years. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that where the deceased was below 40 years and not in permanent employment, there shall be addition of 40% to the assessed income towards future prospects. As the deceased on the date of accident was 19 years of age, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in adding 40% to assessed income of deceased towards future prospects. It is accordingly affirmed. 10. So far as challenge to application of multiplier used by learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in its authoritative decision in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 has held that where deceased was in age group of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25, multiplier of 18 would be -5- applied. Hence, application of multiplier of 18 as applied by learned Claims Tribunal also appears to be correct and it is accordingly affirmed. Looking to number of dependents being widow mother and siblings, deduction of ½ is also correctly applied. Award of compensation under other conventional heads like ‘funeral expenses’ of Rs.15,000/- and ‘loss of estate’ of Rs.15,000/- is also to the tune of judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 11. Claimants in their claim application have also raised a claim for compensation due to damage caused to motorcycle driven by deceased at the time of accident and demanded Rs.45,000/- under this head. In support of this pleading they brought on record Ex.P-14 Inspection Report of offending tractor – Sonlalika No. CG 04 DM 5369 and Ex.P-15 Inspection Report of Motorcycle No.CG 04 LM 4393. Learned Claims Tribunal considering Mechanical Inspection reports of both the vehicles concluded that almost all parts of motorcycle driven by deceased have been damaged and awarded compensation of Rs.43,960/- towards damage of his motorcycle and computed total compensation of Rs.981160/-. As the deceased was also found to be contributory negligent to the extent of 50% in the accident, awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,90,580/- (981160 x 50%). 12. Considering entirety of facts of case as discussed above, oral and documentary evidence available on record, compensation computed and awarded to claimants cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. 13. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any error in the award passed -6- by learned Claims Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. Appeal being sans merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen