1 2025:CGHC:42500 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 608 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd. In Front Of Bhaduria Bhawan, Court Road, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Raibali Kashyap W/o Late Vasudev Kashyap Aged About 40 Years (Next Friend Of Respondent No.4) R/o Village Upanpal, Thana Nagarnar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Babli Kashyap D/o Late Vasudev Kashyap Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Upanpal, Thana Nagarnar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ramesh Kashyap S/o Late Vasudev Kashyap Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Upanpal, Thana Nagarnar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Bamdev Kashyap S/o Late Vsudev Kashyap Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Raibali Kashyap (Respondent No.1) R/o Village Upanpal, Thana Nagarnar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 5 - Raghunath Kashyap S/o Late Gulam Kashyap Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Upanpal, Thana Nagarnar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 6 - Radhamani Kashyap (Deleted) As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 16-08-2021. 7 - M. Suri Babu S/o Vyankat Krishna Babu Aged About 27 Years Occupation Drivery, Through Anoop Jalimi, Venktesh Satyanarayan Murty S/o Subba Rao, Age 46 Years R/o Orna Kemp Aadawal, Near To Hanuman Temple, District Bastar,chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 8 - Anoop Jalimi Venktesh Satyanarayan Murty S/o Subba Rao Aged About 46 Years R/o Orna Kemp Aadawal, Near To Hanuman Temple, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 5 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondents No. 7 & 8 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/08/2025 3 1. The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 26/2016, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 21,25,718/- with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein (respondent No. 6 reported to be dead). 2. Brief facts of the case, is that on 09-04-2015 at about 8:00 A.M., the deceased, Mr. Vasudev Kashyap, was traveling on a bicycle when the offending vehicle, a goods pickup bearing registration No. A.P. 37 T.B. 8787, driven by Respondent No. 7, approached from the rear and collided with the bicycle, causing injuries to the deceased, who subsequently died en route to the hospital; that at the time of the accident, as per the final police report, the said pickup was carrying twenty-five (25) laborers despite having a seating capacity of only two, and was therefore being driven in breach of the policy, and it is submitted that due to overloading, the vehicle likely became unbalanced, resulting in the accident; that the Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in excess of the actual entitlement, which may be reviewed in the interest of justice, and has also erroneously granted interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) in favor of the claimants, whereas interest should be awarded in accordance with the prevailing rates as laid 4 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; and that the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was duly allowed on 29-06-2017. 3. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 14,119/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,69,428/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 56,476/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 1,12,952/-. After adding 30% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 33,885/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,46,837/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 40 to 50 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, children and father of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 20,55,718/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 21,25,718/- in favour of the wife and son of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the appellant/insurance company cannot be held liable for compensation in the present case, as at the time of the accident, the offending goods vehicle, bearing registration No. A.P. 37 T.B. 5 8787, was carrying 25 passengers, whereas its seating capacity was limited to only two persons, as evidenced in the final report submitted by the police. It was further submitted that the eyewitness, Bharat Kashyap, in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his statement, clearly clarified that although persons were seated in the pickup vehicle, he did not know the exact number of passengers, and specifically denied that approximately 25 persons were present in the vehicle at the time of the accident. Learned counsel urged that the final police report corroborates this position and ought to be duly considered. Additionally, it was submitted that while the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized that interest may be awarded based on prevailing rates, the tribunal in the present matter has granted interest in excess of the current bank rate, which calls for reconsideration in the interest of justice. Further, it was emphasized that the tribunal has awarded an excessive amount of compensation beyond what is justifiable under the circumstances, and such excess award should also be reviewed and adjusted in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 while filing cross appeal submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,55,718/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded 6 under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 6. None for respondent No. 7 & 8 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. 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. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 14,119/- per month which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 14,119/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,69,428/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 30% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 50,828/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 7 2,20,256/-. 11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 40 to 50 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, children and father of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 55,064/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,65,192/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 23,12,688/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X6+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,88,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, children and father of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 26,36,688/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 8 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 23,12,688/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X6+10% +10%). Rs. 2,88,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 26,36,688/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 26,36,688/-. After deducting Rs. 21,25,718/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 5,10,970/-. 13. In the result, the cross appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, children and father of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 5,10,970/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 14. So far as appeal filed by the insurance company is concerned, the tribunal after due appreciation has held that, there was no 9 breach of insurance policy as such the grounds which has been raised by insurance company in respect of siting capacity is unfounded. Like was the rate of interest is also on reasonable prevailing rate which is not required to be interfered with. Consequently, the appeal filed by the insurance company is being lack of merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat