1 2025:CGHC:56055 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 542 of 2020 1. Vivek Kathuriya S/o Late Om Prakash Kathuriya Aged About 43 Years R/o Gupta Chowk , Dallirajhara , Police Station Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Vikas Kathuriya S/o Late Om Prakash Kathuriya Aged About 40 Years R/o Gupta Chowk , Dallirajhara, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Veenu Batra W/o Vinay Batra Aged About 38 Years R/o Ganjpara, Chindwada , District Chindwada Madhya Pradesh., District : Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Khub Lal Sahu S/o Mahasing Sahu Aged About 44 Years (Drive Of Offending Vehicle) , R/o 256, Chowk Colony, Ward No. 5, Dallirajhara, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Nohar Lal Sahu S/o Mehataru Ram Sahu (Owner Of Offending Vehicle), R/o 256, Chowk Colony, Ward No. 5, Dallirajhara, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Saluja Complex, Durg Road Ganjpara, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh..(Insurer Owner Of Offending Vehicle), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.11 .2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the Motor Accident Claims 2 Tribunal, Balod in Claim Case No. 91/2019 dated 30.01.2020, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 8,80,821/- with interest at the rate of 10% per anum on account of death of Smt. Shakuntala Kathuriya. 2. Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that Smt. Shakuntala was dashed by Bajaj Discover motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 07 LC 8402 on 04.03.2019 at about 6:30 pm, resultantly, she sustained injuries and during course of treatment died on 08.04.2019. She would further submit that two sons and a daughter filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,96,000/- inter alia on the ground that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 67 years and she was running a Mobile Shop and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. She would also submit that the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,10,821/- incurred in the medical treatment of the deceased, but rejected the claim of the petitioner for loss of income. She would contend that the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- for love and affection, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate. She would further contend that the learned Tribunal held that that deceased was running a Mobile Shop and after her death, it is being operated by her children; therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation for loss of income. It is contended that the learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix to assess loss of income. It is further contended that the deceased was running her business and after her death, the entire loss of business should be taken into consideration. She would pay to grant compensation accordingly. 3. Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3/Insurance 3 company would submit that there was no loss of business as the legal representatives of the deceased are still running the Mobil Shop, and therefore, there is no loss of business and the amount of compensation cannot be assessed based on the income of the deceased from her business. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 would support the contention made by Mr. Nande. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The claimants have challenged the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal on the ground that the entire loss of business should have been taken into consideration. The issue involved in the present case would be “Whether the entire loss of business is to be taken into consideration or only the loss of management will be taken into consideration while assessing the compensation in the case”. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased was running a Mobile Shop and was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. Claimant No. 1 in his evidence has proved this fact that his mother was running a Mobile Shop and earning Rs. 9,000/-, but no document has been placed on record to prove income. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, AIR 1995 SC 755 have held that, “In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed in objective standards. 4 8. In the matter of Divisional Controller KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, 2003(7)SCC 197, in paragraphs 12 and 15 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “12. It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique frame that has been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Merris in West v. Shepard (1964 AC 326). Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. Object of providing compensation is to place claimant as far as possible in the same position financially as he was before accident. Broadly speaking, in the case of death basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses, etc. and loss to the estate. Object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive, nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring value of human life and measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation; but amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor it should be a source of profit of the person in whose favour it is awarded. Upjohn L.J. in Charter House Credit v. Jolly (1963) 2 CB 683) remarked, 'the assessment of damages has never been an exact science; it is essentially practical'.” xxxx xxxxx xxxx 15. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be 'just'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance to the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for the mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The 5 Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non- arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (AIR 1998 SC 3191).” 9. Involvement of the deceased in the business as also the active participation in the management as well as day to day affairs of the business cannot be denied. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire loss of business or entire loss of income of the deceased cannot be considered. Although, the claimants or the sons of the deceased may not be able to run the shop as the deceased was running. There may be lack of skill to run the shop or they may run the shop better than the deceased and it all depends upon their skill. The claimants have neither pleaded nor proved the fact that after death of their mother, the transactions in the shop is gradually getting down or it is increased. 10. Thus, considering all probability, nature of business and the evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that loss of 50% of business of the deceased can be considered as the loss of income. 11. The claimants themselves have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/-, and therefore, Rs. 4,500/- would be appropriate figure of income for the loss of income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal committed error of law while denying compensation to the claimants for 6 loss of income. The age of the deceased was 67 years; therefore, the claimants would not be entitled for compensation on head of future prospects. The claim application has been filed by two major sons and one daughter, and since the two sons were self-dependent, only the daughter can be treated as dependent on the income of the deceased. 12. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130, the appropriate deduction would be 50% and the multiplier would be 5. The claimants would be entitled for compensation on the head of loss of consortium. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited herein-below :- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income NIL Rs. 4,500 x12 = Rs. 54,000/- 2. Deduction NIL (-) 1/2 Rs. 27000/- Rs. 27,000/- 3. Multiplier NIL (x) 5 = Rs. 1,35,000/- 4. Medical expenses Rs. 8,10,821/- Rs. 8,10,821/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- (Love and affection) Rs. 44,000/- 8. Loss of consortium(for Rs. 44,000/- 7 appellant No. 2) 9. Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 3) Rs. 44,000/- TOTAL Rs. 8,80,821/- Rs. 11,07,821/- 13. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 8,80,821/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 11,07,821/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 8,80,821/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,27,000/-. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 14. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant