1 2025:CGHC:53988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1271 of 2018 1 - Smt. Aghni Bai Wd/o Late Dular Singh Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Sambalpur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Punamchand Sahu S/o Late Dular Singh Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Sambalpur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mehit Kumar S/o Late Dular Singh Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Sambalpur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Toran Prasad Sahu S/o Late Dular Singh Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Sambalpur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Naveen Kumar Sahu S/o Sudeep Kumar Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Sambalpur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G. -04-Lb-8858), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Santkumar Sahu, R/o Hasda No. 2 (Karga), Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G. - 04- Lb-8858), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 3 - Insurance Company I.C.I.C.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G. -04-Lb-8858)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shekhar Amin, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (04.11.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 18.05.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No.105/2016 (herein referred to as ‘MACT’) whereby a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest @ 06% per annum, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 23.01.2016, the deceased, Dular Singh Sahu, after completing his duty at Vardhman Rice Mill, was returning home, and when he reached near Sambalpur School, respondent no. 1, while driving his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG-04-LB-8858 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Dular Singh Sahu, causing him multiple grievous injuries. The injured was immediately taken to Masihi Hospital, Dhamtari, and subsequently referred to Narayana Hospital, Raipur, where he succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment. Due to his untimely demise, the claimants instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹16,00,000/-, asserting that the deceased was employed as a Munshi 3 earning ₹16,050/- per month. The respondents nos. 1 and 2, in their joint written statement, denied the occurrence of the accident involving their vehicle and further contended that the motorcycle was being plied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Respondent no. 3 (the insurer), in its separate reply, contended that respondent no. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and that the vehicle was being used in contravention of the policy conditions, thereby absolving the insurer of liability. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed five issues, all of which were decided in favour of the claimants; however, the Tribunal awarded a compensation amount that the appellants consider inadequate, thus necessitating the filing of the present Miscellaneous Appeal (C). 4. When the claim application for compensation was filed by the present appellants/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.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 72 years and the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased and the deduction was 1/2 towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.18,000/- total income would be Rs.18,000/-. After applying multiplier of 5, the total loss of dependency calculated to Rs. 90,000/-. The medical expenses calculated by the Tribunal is Rs.15,000/- and on other heads Rs.55,000/- has been calculated and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the 4 appellants/claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants respectfully submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is erroneous both in law and on facts as apparent from the record. The Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the claimants. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal arbitrarily assessed the income of the deceased at merely ₹3,000/- per month, disregarding the uncontroverted evidence and pleadings of the claimants that the deceased was employed as a Munshi earning ₹16,050/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in deducting 50% of the assessed income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, whereas, in view of the fact that the claim petition was filed by the wife of the deceased, the deduction ought to have been restricted to one-third of the income in accordance with settled legal principles. The Tribunal also failed to properly consider and award the actual medical expenses incurred to the tune of ₹93,712/-, instead granting a meagre sum of ₹15,000/-, which is contrary to the evidence on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Courts. Moreover, the amounts awarded under other conventional heads, such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, are on the lower side and deserve enhancement. The appellants, therefore, most humbly submit that the impugned award warrants interference and enhancement by this Hon’ble Court. The appellants further crave leave to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing and pray that any other relief deemed just and proper in the 5 facts and circumstances of the case be granted in their favour. 6. No representation was made on behalf of driver and owner 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. 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.1,60,000/- 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.16,050/- per month and no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, Therefore, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate that the trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the 6 deceased to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month, at the relevant time of accident. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.36,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , 1 . 12. The deceased was aged about 72 years and was married and the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so looking to the age and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court no future prospectus will be granted. So far as the deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has erred in deducting the personal expenses to 1/2 which would be granted to 1/3 which comes to Rs.12,000/- (Rs.36,000/- / 3 = Rs.12,000/-), the annual income comes to Rs.24,000/-. Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 5 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,20,000/-. 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, 2 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/- and claimants are further entitled for the full amount of medical treatment to the tune of Rs.93,712/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,48,000/-. In light of the judgment passed by the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 7 Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors 3 , this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- Sn. Heads Calculation 01 Income of the Deceased Rs.36,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12) 02 Deduction 1/3 Rs.12,000/- (Rs.36,000/- / 1/3) 03 Total Income of the Deceased Rs.24,000/- (Rs.36,000/- - Rs.12,000/-) 04 Multiplier of 5 Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.24,000 x 5) 05 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 06 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 07 Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs.48,000/- x 4 Rs. 1,92,000/- 08 Medical Expenses Rs.93,712 Total Rs.4,41,712/- 13. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,41,712 /- from Rs.1,60,000/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,81,712/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 14. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 18.05.2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena 3 (2011) 1 SCC 343