1 2025:CGHC:43726 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 374 of 2024 1 - Savita Rathore Wd/o Late Pritam Singh Aged About 33 Years Caste Rathore, R/o Village Dongratola, Sadhwani, P.S. Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Anupriya Rathore, D/o Late Pritam Singh Aged About 9 Years Caste Rathore, R/o Village Dongratola, Sadhwani, P.S. Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Anshika Rathore, D/o Late Pritam Singh Aged About 2 Years Minor Natural Guarding Mother Savita Rathore Wd/o Pritam Singh Caste Rathore, R/o Village Dongratola, Sadhwani, P.S. Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Gauri Rathore, D/o Late Pritam Singh Aged About 2 Years Minor Natural Guarding Mother Savita Rathore Wd/o Pritam Singh Caste Rathore, R/o Village Dongratola, Sadhwani, P.S. Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shyam Bai Wd./o Late Bechu Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Dongratola, Sadhwani, P.S. Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Nutan Prasad Rathore S/o Thakur Prasad, Aged About 36 Years (Driver) R/o Village Bhadaura, P.S. Gaurela, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gulla Rathore, S/o Mangal Rathore, Aged About 62 Years (Owner) R/o Village Bhadaura, P.S. Gaurela, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 2 3 - Ifco Takio General Insurance Company Ltd. Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 28/08/2025 Challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 04.12.2023 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 23/2022 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendraroad, District Bilapur, CG by which against a claim of Rs. 42,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,51,525/- in favour of the appellants/claimants on account of death of the deceased Preetam Singh Rathore in an accident that took place on 05.02.2022 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. CG 10 AC 6668 by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with respondent No. 3 / insurance company by partly allowing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 2. As per pleading of the claim application, the deceased died on account of the said accident, he was a carpenter and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. 3. The claim application was resisted by the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and denied the averments of the claim application and respondent No. 3 has also filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license which is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 3 4. On the basis of above board pleading, the learned Tribunal framed four issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants however, held that the deceased contributed to the tune of 30% in causing the accident therefore, 30% amount was deducted from the total compensation assessed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that the finding of contributing negligence recorded by the learned claims Tribunal is bad in law which requires to be set aside. Apart from this, he submits that only 25 % future prospect was added and looking to the age of the deceased between 36 – 40, future prospect of 40 % ought to have been added. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 support the impugned award. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 8. First point which comes to determination is to whether the learned tribunal was correct in deducting 30% amount holding the contributing negligence of the deceased. 9. From the perusal on record it appears that the accident has caused by the offending vehicle Tractor. The learned Tribunal gave a finding that as the deceased was trying to overtake the truck and thereafter, the offending vehicle dashed to it, naturally he has contributed in causing the accident. There is no dispute to the fact that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was also filed against him. Apart from this, it has to be seen that the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined to substantiate in any manner the deceased also contributed to the accident. In view of the above, the finding appears to be not based on proper appreciation of evidence and is here by set aside. 4 10. The next question which comes to determination before this Court as to what would be just compensation. As per pleading of the claim application the deceased was a carpenter thus a skilled labour. Though barring the oral evidence, no documentary evidence is available on record, however, the accident has occurred on 05.02.2022 and there are five dependents upon income of the deceased including three minor daughters aged between 2 – 9 years, wife and mother. Naturally the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed properly considering the evidence available on record. 11. Taking into consideration the evidence available on record, minimum wages; nature of job, this Court finds it appropriate to take the notional income of the deceased to Rs. 12,000/-. In light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:- S. No. Description Amount 1. Monthly income 12,000/- 2. 40% Future prospect 4800/- 3. Total Monthly Income (12000+4800) 16,800/- 4. Total Yearly Income (16800x12) 2,01,600/- 5. 1/4 Deduction for personal expenses of deceased 50400/- 6. Net income 1,51,200/- 7. Multiplier of 15 applied to assess total loss of dependency 22,68,000/- 8. Loss of Estate +b funeral expenses + spousal consortium 77,000/- 5 9. Parental and filial consortium 1,60,000/- 10. Total 25,05,000/- 10. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 10,51,525/- awarded by learned tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,50,5000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 10,51,525/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 14,53,475/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of appeal i.e. 14.02.2024. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days. After deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be disbursed to appellant No. 5; Rs. 3,00,000/- (each) shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of one years in the name of appellant Nos. 2 to 4; Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of for two years in the name of appellant No.1. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No. 1 through bank transaction/account payee cheque. 12. No cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan