1 2025:CGHC:56409 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1669 of 2018 1 - Smt. Sukhmati Devi Sahu W/o Rohit Kumar Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kurmapali, Post Kotra, P.S. Kotraroad, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Rohit Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kurmapali, Post Kotra, P.S. Kotraroad, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Nirmala Sahu D/o Rohit Kumar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kurmapali, Post Kotra, P.S. Kotraroad, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ram Sahu S/o Rohit Kumar Sahu Aged About 18 Years (It Is Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) R/o Village Kurmapali, Post Kotra, P.S. Kotraroad, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Matias Khalkho (Since Death) Through Lrs. (Owner) 1.1 - (A). Araman Khalkho S/o Late Matias Khalkho Aged About 49 Years R/o Near Urdana Beriyar Gharghoda, Road Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Second Battalion C.A.F. Sakti, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rijhuram Dome S/o Nan Dom Aged About 25 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Niraikhar, P.S. Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Krishnapur, P.S. Kotraroad, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, R/o Krishn Shopping Mall, 4th Floor, Chaitanya Nagar Dhimrapur Road, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 19/11/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 01.10.2015 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 170/2011 whereby an amount of Rs. 22,23,584/- was awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present claim petition, are that On 11.01.2011, at approximately 4:15 PM, the deceased, Rohit Kumar, was traveling from Baroud to Kurmapali village. When he reached Dhimrapur Chowk, ahead of the bridge, the offending vehicle, an auto-rickshaw with registration number C.G. 12 TR 4762, driven by the second respondent, rashly and negligently collided with the motorbike of the deceased. As a result, Rohit Kumar suffered grievous injuries and was immediately taken to Ganga Nursing Home for treatment. However, due to the severity of his injuries, he was referred to a hospital in Raipur. Tragically, near Saraipali, Rohit Kumar succumbed to his injuries before he could receive further treatment. The incident was reported to the local police, who subsequently registered an offense against the driver of the offending vehicle (respondent no. 2). Following the tragic death of 3 Rohit Kumar, his family, comprising his wife (appellant no. 1), his son (appellant no. 4), and three daughters, filed a claim for compensation before the learned Claims Tribunal. The appellants, who were financially dependent on the deceased, sought compensation totaling Rs. 5,020,292/- under various heads. The claimants submitted that at the time of the accident, Rohit Kumar was employed as a Headmaster at a Government school, earning Rs. 25,143/- per month. The respondents, upon being notified, denied the incident and contested their liability to pay the compensation. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal issued an award on 01.10.2015, granting compensation of Rs. 2,223,584/- in favor of the appellants. However, the appellants contend that this amount is inadequate, given the loss of the sole earning member of the family. As a result, the appellants have filed this appeal, seeking an enhanced compensation amount. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned judgment and award dated 01.10.2015 is not in accordance with the law and the facts of the case, and is therefore liable to be enhanced. The learned Claims Tribunal has erred in several aspects, leading to an inadequate award that does not truly reflect the loss suffered by the appellants. The Tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased, Rohit Kumar, was earning Rs. 16,762/- per month, despite evidence that he was earning Rs. 25,143/- per month as a Headmaster at a Government school. This erroneous calculation has led to a significant reduction in the 4 compensation awarded to the appellants. The learned counsel for appellants submits that the Tribunal should have considered the correct salary, as per the evidence on record, and enhanced the amount accordingly. The Tribunal has failed to apply the correct legal principles regarding the dependency of the family. The deceased was the sole earning member of the family, and the Tribunal has not taken into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Versus Ashok Kumar & another (SCC 2014, vol. 5, page 330), which clearly establishes the entitlement of the family to higher compensation when the deceased was the sole breadwinner. The failure of Tribunal to follow this judgment is a clear error and warrants an enhancement in the compensation amount. The learned counsel for appellant further submits that the Tribunal incorrectly assessed the age of the deceased as 55 years, whereas the deceased was 50 years old at the time of the accident. This error in applying the multiplier has resulted in an unjustly lower compensation amount, which should be rectified. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (A.I.R. 2017 Supreme Court 5157), specifically the provision regarding future prospects. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of future prospects, which is clearly mandated in the Pranay Sethi (supra) case, where the Supreme Court awarded an additional 40% increase in the income of a deceased person who was 5 employed and under the age of 40. The learned counsel for appellants submits that this omission must be corrected, and the compensation should be enhanced accordingly. The Tribunal has incorrectly deducted 1/3rd of the monthly earnings towards personal expenses of the deceased, which, according to the law, should have been ½, as per the Supreme Court’s guidelines. The deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, and no fault can be attributed to him in the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the incident, and the deduction made by Tribunal in this regard is not in line with the judicial precedents. Additionally, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the documents and evidence presented before it. The evidence clearly establishes that the deceased was the only earning member, and the appellants’ claim for a higher compensation amount is supported by both the facts and the law. The failure on the part of Tribunal to adequately consider this evidence has resulted in an unjustly low award. In light of the above, it is prayed that this Court may kindly allow the appeal and enhance the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award dated 01.10.2015. 4. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 – Insurance company that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is in accordance with the applicable laws and facts of the case. The Tribunal has properly 6 considered the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles in calculating the compensation. Therefore, the Insurance Company submits that the award does not warrant any enhancement and prays for the dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. On due consideration, this Court finds no merit in the appellants' submission regarding the recalculation or enhancement of other heads, including the monthly income of deceased, dependency, age of the deceased, and the application of future prospects. The Tribunal has already taken these factors into account in a just and reasonable manner. The calculation of compensation based on the deceased's income of Rs. 16,762/- per month and the multiplier of 11 applied for the age of the deceased (assumed to be 55 years) is not in error. Further, the Tribunal correctly followed the legal precedents regarding the deduction of 1/3rd of the deceased’s income towards personal expenses, and there is no 7 sufficient ground to disturb the amount awarded under these heads. 9. After carefully considering the submissions of both parties and perusing the material on record, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its judgment dated 01.10.2015 is largely appropriate, with the exception of certain heads which warrant enhancement. 10. The claimants are 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). The claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X4+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 24,46,584/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 22,12,584/- 02 Towards Love and Affection Rs. 6,000/- 03 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X4+10%+10%). Rs. 1,92,000/- 04 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 05 Towards Funeral Rs. 18,000/- 8 Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Total Rs. 24,46,584/- 11. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 24,46,584/-. After deducting Rs. 22,23,584/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,23,000/-. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,23,000/- 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