1 2025:CGHC:61019 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 339 of 2018 1 - Smt. Dasmati Chhura W/o Late Aalekh Chhura Aged About 42 Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Upendra Chhura S/o Late Aalekh Chhura Aged About 20 Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Suraj Chhura S/o Late Aalekh Chhura Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Dashmati Chura W/o Late Aalekh Chura, R/o Krishna Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ashwani Kharsal S/o Jagbandhu Kharsal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Gambhariguda, Post Sinhapali, District Nayapada, Odisha (Driver Of Vehicle Gvw Max Pickup No. Or-26-2303), District : Nuapada *, Orissa 2 - Chatur Bagh S/o Abhiram Bagh R/o Pokerpod, Post Raja Khariyad, District Nayapada, Odisha (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Gvw Max Pickup No. Or-26-2303), District : Nuapada *, Orissa 3 - (A) Branch Manager Bajaj Aliyanj General Insurance Company Ltd. Shivmoha Bhawan/complex, 2nd Floor, Vidhansabha Road, Pandari, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 3.1 - (B) Branch Manager Bajaj Aliyanj General Insurance Company Ltd. Giriraj Complex, Satanand Chambers, 1st Floor Shop No. 212-213, Station Road, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Gvw Max Pickup No. Or-26-2303), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Tamrakar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (15.12.2025) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 25.10.2017 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 375/2010 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,98,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Facts of the case :- That the appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of ₹14,70,000/- from the respondents under various heads on account of the untimely death of late Allekh Chura, who was the husband of appellant No.1 and the father of appellant Nos.2 and 3, pleading inter alia that on 25.03.2009 the deceased was travelling from Bhalumuda to Khariyad in a vehicle bearing registration No. OR- 26/2303 along with other persons, and when the said vehicle reached near village Junain, it overturned due to being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result whereof the deceased 3 sustained grievous injuries on his head, mouth, ear and other parts of the body and, despite being immediately taken for medical treatment, succumbed to the said injuries at the Government Hospital; it was further averred that at the time of his death the deceased was working as a labourer and was earning approximately ₹5,000/- per month, and that the appellants, being his dependent legal representatives, suffered severe financial loss as well as loss of consortium, love and affection due to his demise; however, the learned Claims Tribunal, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, assessed the annual income of the deceased at ₹36,000/-, deducted one-fourth towards personal and living expenses, and by applying the multiplier of 9 assessed the loss of dependency at ₹2,43,000/-, and further awarded a sum of ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses, ₹10,000/- towards loss of consortium in favour of appellant No.1 and ₹10,000/- each to appellant Nos.2 and 3 towards loss of love and affection, thereby granting a total compensation of only ₹2,98,000/- for the death of late Allekh Chura, which is grossly inadequate and contrary to the settled principles governing assessment of just compensation, and hence the present appeal has been preferred. 3. 3. When the claim application for compensation was filed by the present appellants/claimants of deceased before the Claims Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of the alleged vehicle, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 42 years and the claimants are the parents, children and sister of the deceased and 4 the deduction was ¼th towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.2,250/- total income would be Rs.27,000/-. After applying multiplier of 9, the total loss of dependency calculated to Rs.2,43,000/-. Apart from that on other heads Rs.55,000/- has been calculated and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,98,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in disbelieving the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, who were duly examined in support of their pleadings. The rejection of their statements amounts to a failure in appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospect of the deceased. In light of the precedents set by this Hon’ble Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others 1 . It ought to have considered that the deceased left behind wife and children making a total of 3 dependents. The findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside. The Tribunal’s conclusions run contrary to the documentary evidence and oral testimony on record, reflecting a failure to properly consider the facts in their correct perspective. The learned Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum, warranting suitable enhancement of the interest awarded. In light of the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 above, the appellants respectfully pray that the impugned award be set aside and the claim be enhanced as per the submissions made herein. 5. No representation was made on behalf of Driver and Owner. 6. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent Insurance Company that in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal requires no interference of this Court and no further enhancement is required to be made, therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed. 7. I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 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 Rs.2,98,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month from working but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, Therefore, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I 6 find it appropriate that the trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the deceased, at the relevant time of accident. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.27,000/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra). 11. The deceased was aged about 42 years and was married and the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , 2 and Pranay Sethi (supra), the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,43,000/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years), for funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years) and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, 3 the claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/- (10% increase in every three years) each i.e. Rs.1,44,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,23,000/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors 4 , this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- Sn. Heads Calculation 01 Loss of Dependency Rs.2,43,000/- 02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 03 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs.48,000/- x 3 Rs. 1,44,000/- Total Rs.4,23,000/- 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 4 (2011) 1 SCC 343 7 12. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.4,23,000/- from Rs.2,98,000/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.1,25,000/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. Though, in the present case, the insurance company stands exonerated on account of the offending vehicle having been plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, however, having due regard to the benevolent nature of the legislation and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and further considering the fact that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have neither appeared before this Court nor challenged the liability fastened upon them, this Court is of the considered opinion that the insurance company shall satisfy the award in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. It is further directed that if any amount has already been deposited by the owner, the insurance company shall be liable to deposit only the remaining balance amount. 13. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 25.10.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena