1 2025:CGHC:54510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1108 of 2018 1 - Smt. Daso Kashyap (Deleted ) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 27-06-2025 2 - Kumari Dhanmati Kashyap D/o Late Laxminath Kashyap Aged About 20 Years R/o Sirhapara Village Umargaon, Post Dubey Umargaon, P/s Bhanpuri, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Kala Kashyap D/o Late Laxminath Kashyap Aged About 18 Years R/o Sirhapara Village Umargaon, Post Dubey Umargaon, P/s Bhanpuri, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Kumari Khemeshwari Kashyap D/o Late Laxminath Kashyap Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Daso Kashyap, W/o Late Laxminath Kashyap, R/o Sirhapara Village Umargaon, Post Dubey Umargaon, P/s Bhanpuri, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Kirtan Kashyap D/o Late Laxminath Kashyap Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Daso Kashyap, W/o Late Laxminath Kashyap, R/o Sirhapara Village Umargaon, Post Dubey Umargaon, P/s Bhanpuri, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Kumari Yogita D/o Late Laxminath Kashyap Aged About 36 Years R/o Sirhapara Village Umargaon, Post Dubey Umargaon, P/s Bhanpuri, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Budari Kashyap W/o Late Bhayraram Kashyap Aged About 65 Years R/o Sirhapara Village Umargaon, Post Dubey Umargaon, P/s Bhanpuri, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Dhaneshwar Nag S/o Gupteshwar Nag Aged About 26 Years Cast Mahara, R/o Kenwatapara, Village Kumharavand, Police Station Parpa, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh...........(Driver), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Narayan Baghel S/o Late Gadaruram Baghel Aged About 40 Years R/o Matideopara, Village Sonaarpal, Police Station Bhanpuri, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.........(Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental General Insurance Company Limited Through- Branch Manager, Murti Line, In Front Of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Benoon Sabarwal, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 81/2017 whereby an amount of Rs. 11,78,000/- has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for the irreparable loss. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that on 09.05.2017 at around 7:00 PM, was returning home on his motorcycle when he met with a fatal road accident. It was alleged that the accident occurred near his route when the offending vehicle, a Borelo bearing registration number CG/KJ/0146, driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1, collided with the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The matter was immediately reported to the police, and a report of the accident was lodged in accordance with statutory procedures. The deceased was employed as an electrician and also engaged in agricultural activities, earning a combined monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. It was pleaded that the respondents were liable for the 3 accident and resultant death of the deceased due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 1. In response to the claim petition, respondent No. 1, the driver, and respondent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle, filed their written statements denying all allegations and contentions raised in the claim petition. Similarly, respondent No. 3, the insurance company of the offending vehicle, also filed its written statement denying liability and contending that no compensation was payable. The respondents raised various defenses, including denial of rash or negligent driving, contributory negligence, and questioned the income and dependency details submitted by the claimants. 3. After considering the pleadings, documents, and oral evidence presented by both parties, the learned Claims Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 (Annexure A-1). The Tribunal, after examining the evidence, assessed the compensation in favor of the claimants but awarded a sum significantly lower than the amount claimed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation to a just and reasonable amount in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal dated 31.03.2018 is wholly inadequate and fails to meet the standards of just and fair compensation as envisaged under Section 166 of the 4 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was argued that the Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation in a mechanical and restricted manner without proper appreciation of the factual matrix and evidence on record. The compensation awarded is substantially lower than what the claimants were legitimately entitled to, considering the nature of the loss suffered due to the untimely death of their son, the deceased Laxminath. The learned Tribunal, by not granting adequate compensation, has caused grave injustice to the appellants who are the parents and dependents of the deceased. It was further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate the realistic income of the deceased. The deceased was employed as an electrician and was also an agriculturist, owning 15 acres of cultivable land. The monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- pleaded in the claim petition was neither exaggerated nor extraordinary but was modest and substantiated by relevant documents exhibited before the Tribunal. Despite clear documentary evidence, the Tribunal has overlooked these particulars and assessed the compensation on a far lesser income, thereby significantly reducing the rightful entitlement of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the Tribunal committed a manifest error in applying the personal and family expenses and in determining the multiplier for computing loss of dependency. The appellants, being fully dependent on the deceased, suffered not only financial loss but also enduring emotional and social hardship, which ought to have 5 been properly factored in by the Tribunal. It was further submitted that the Tribunal failed to award adequate compensation under conventional heads, particularly for loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. These heads represent the non-pecuniary losses suffered by the family, and a fair assessment would have appropriately reflected the emotional trauma, disruption of family life, and financial burdens occasioned by the sudden death of the deceased. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prayed that this Court be pleased to enhance the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal to an amount commensurate with the actual loss suffered by the claimants. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 - the insurance company that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation based on the evidence available on record. It was submitted that the monthly income of the deceased and other claimed particulars were considered reasonably by the Tribunal, and the multiplier and deductions for personal expenses were applied in accordance with settled legal principles. The Tribunal has already awarded a fair and just compensation under all relevant heads, including dependency, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. Therefore, no enhancement is warranted, and the impugned award may be upheld. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 material available on record. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Having carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and the circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, warrants modification in terms of the quantum of compensation. The deceased, Laxminath, was a young and healthy individual who was engaged as an electrician and also actively involved in agricultural activities. After examining the evidence and documents placed on record, it is apparent that the realistic monthly income of the deceased cannot be taken as the arbitrary figure assessed by the Tribunal. Considering the proof of earnings and agricultural produce, the monthly income of the deceased is held to be Rs. 7,930/-, resulting in an annual income of Rs. 95,160/-. In accordance with settled principles, an enhancement of 40% is applied to account for future prospects, particularly in 7 view of the young age and potential growth of the income of deceased. The Tribunal rightly applied the principle of deducting one-fifth of the income for the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Applying the multiplier of 15, as per the age and earning capacity of the deceased, the total loss of dependency is calculated accordingly. 10. The Court also notes that the Tribunal did not adequately consider conventional heads of compensation, which include non- pecuniary losses such as loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation under these heads to fully reflect the hardship and emotional trauma suffered by the claimants. An amount of Rs. 18,000/- is granted towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. For loss of filial consortium, an amount of Rs. 48,000/- per claimant is awarded to six claimants. 11. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 19,22,700/- in the following manner:- Heads Amount Income 7930/- x 12 Rs. 95,160/- Future Prospect (40% i.e. Rs. 38,064/-) Rs. 1,33,224/- Deduction (1/5 i.e. Rs. 26,644/-) Rs. 1,06,580/- Multiplier (x15) Rs. 15,98,700/- Loss of Estate (10% increase in every 3 years) Rs. 18,000/- Funeral Expenses (10% increase in every 3 Rs. 18,000/- 8 years) Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 6) (10% increase in every 3 years) Rs. 2,88,000/- Total Rs. 19,22,700/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 19,22,700. After deducting Rs. 11,78,800/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,43,900/-. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,43,900/- 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. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE