1 2025:CGHC:59550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 453 of 2017 1 - Smt. Manju Sonkar W/o Late Laxminarayan Sonkar, Aged About 30 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Manddeval Para, Arang, P.S. And Tah. Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Yamuna Sonkar D/o Late Laxminarayan Sonkar, Aged About 10 Years Through Smt. Manju Sonkar W/o Late Laxminarayan Sonkar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Azad Chowk, Manddeval Para, Arang, P.S. And Tah. Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Mithlesh Sonkar S/o Late Laxminarayan Sonkar, Aged About 8 Years Through Smt. Manju Sonkar W/o Late Laxminarayan Sonkar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Azad Chowk, Manddeval Para, Arang, P.S. And Tah. Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhedilal Sonkar S/o Late Chamru Sonkar, Aged About 60 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Manddeval Para, Arang, P.S. And Tah. Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Mani Sonkar W/o Chhedilal Sonkar, Aged About 55 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Manddeval Para, Arang, P.S. And Tah. Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 versus 1 - Dageshwar Kumbhkar S/o Gariba Kumbhkar, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Paragaon, P.S. And Tah. Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 H R 3934, Chhattisgarh 2 - Raju Paul S/o Shri Tokaram Pal, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Paragaon, P.S. And Tah. Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 H R 3934, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - New India Insurance Company Limited, Madina Building, Jail Road, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh Policy No. 460101311401000303 Valid From 02.01.2015 To 01.01.2016, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants :- Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :- None, though served. For Respondent No. 3 :- Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 08.12.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 25.01.2017 passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G. in Claim Case No. 345/2015, whereby a total compensation of Rs. 8,65,000/- was awarded to the claimants with interest at the rate 3 of 7% from the date of application till realization, fastening the liability upon the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 2. As per the claim petition, on 04.05.2015, deceased- Laxminarayan Sonkar, aged about 32 years, earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a light-fitter, doing agricultural labour, and selling vegetables, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Hyva Truck bearing registration No.CG04-HR-3934 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle') by non-applicant No.1- Dageshwar Kumbhkar. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non- applicant No.2 Raju Pal and insured with non-applicant No.3- New India Insurance Company Limited. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.49,00,000/- under various heads, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month on notional basis, whereas it should have been Rs.5,787/- per month as per the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, which ought to have been awarded looking to the age of the 4 deceased i.e. 35 years and in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. He also submits that the Tribunal has also wrongly applied the multiplier 15, whereas it should be 16, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 35 years as determined by the Tribunal and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Pranay Sethi (supra). He also submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is on lower side, which also needs to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, has rightly awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. 6. None appears for the respondents No. 1 & 2, though served. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. As regards the income of the deceased- Laxminarayan Sonkar, though the claimants in the claim petition have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a 5 light-fitter, doing agricultural labour, and selling vegetables, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been adduced by the claimants to substantiate the said pleading. However, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is not correct. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the nature of work of the deceased and also considering the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,787/- per month as per the minimum wages. 9. As regard non-grant of future prospects by the Tribunal, it is pertinent to mention here that the accident occurred on 04.05.2015 and at that time, the deceased- Laxminarayan Sonkar was aged 35 years as assessed by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are below 40 years. Therefore, in the present case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 35 years, the applicable percentage towards future prospects would be 40%. 10. As regards the multiplier 15 used by the Tribunal, in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has prescribed the multiplier of 16 for the age group between 31 to 35 years. Therefore, in the instant case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 35 years, the applicable multiplier would be 16 instead of 15 as used by the Tribunal. 6 11. So far as amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is concerned, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- towards funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). Further, as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram (supra), the claimants are also entitled for Rs. 48,000/- x 5 each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs.96,000/- towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,787/- per month Rs.69,444/- per annum 02. 40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.97,222/- (Rs.27,778/- + Rs.69,444/-) 03. ¼ deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.72,917/- (Rs.97,222/- - Rs.24,305/- ) 04. Multiplier of 16 to be applied Rs.72,917/- x 16 = Rs.11,66,672/- 05. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.36,000/- 06. Towards loss of filial consortium to claimants (Rs.48,000/- each) (Rs.48,000/- x 5) Rs.2,40,000/- Total Compensation Rs.14,42,672/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.8,65,000/-, after deducting the same from Rs.14,42,672/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.5,77,672/- with 7 interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification in the impugned award to the above extent. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha