Page No.1 of 7 IN MAC-286-2022 2025:CGHC:48040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 286 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 09.12.2021, passed in claim Case No.112/2021 (Chandan Kashyap and others v. Shubham Agrawal and others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG)] 1 - Chandan Kashyap S/o Rasiyaram Kashyap Aged About 33 Years R/o Harrakoder Post Harrakoder P.S. Mardum District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Miss Yasoda Kashyap D/o Chandan Kashyap Aged About 7 Years Appellant No. 2. Minor Represented Their Natural Guardian Chandan Kashyap (Father) (Appellant No. 1), R/o Harrakoder Post Harrakoder P.S. Mardum District- Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Miss Naviya Kashyap D/o Chandan Kashyap Aged About 3 Years Appellant No. 3. Minor Represented Their Natural Guardian Chandan Kashyap (Father) (Appellant No. 1), R/o Harrakoder Post Harrakoder P.S. Mardum District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Shubham Agrawal S/o Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Second Round Of Jhopadipara Sanjay Gandhi Ward Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle) 2 - Ghanshyam Banjare S/o Mangaturam Banjare Through Shubham Banjare, S/o Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Aged About 30 Years, R/o Second Round Of Jhopadipara Sanjay Gandhi Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle) 3 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Akaswani Road Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. PK Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondents No.1-2 : None though served. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 7 IN MAC-286-2022 For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Adv. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 18.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 09.12.2021, passed in claim Case No.112/2021 (Chandan Kashyap and others v. Shubham Agrawal and others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.22,51,396/- as compensation for the death of Smt. Balmati Kashyap, who was aged about 30 years on the date of occurrence. 2. Facts of the case, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.06.2020, while deceased- Smt. Balmati Kashyap was going to Usaribeda in a motor-cycle as pillion rider and, when she reached near Mendri Turn, the driver (respondent No.1) of the offending vehicle i.e. Scooty bearing No. CG-04-MR-7505, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and hit the motor-cycle in which the deceased was sitting, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died. Thereafter, the appellants, who are dependents of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Page No.3 of 7 IN MAC-286-2022 Rs.47,80,000/- pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 30 years of age and used to earn Rs.25,000/- PM from his work of Peon in Education Department. The deceased used to maintain her family members and, after her death, her family members have no any source of income to survive. Even otherwise, the deceased was aged about 30 years on the date of accident and was a able-bodied person and on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties. 3. Respondents No.1 & 2 – driver and owner of the offending vehicle submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the accident was not caused by the aforesaid vehicle and the deceased has died on account of his own carelessness, moreover, on the date of the accident, the driver of the said vehicle was having valid driving license as well as the said vehicle (Scooty) was duly insured with respondent No.3, therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.3. 4. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company has opposed the claim application stating that the said vehicle (Scooty) was being used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and Page No.4 of 7 IN MAC-286-2022 evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased- Smt. Balmati Kashyap died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle i.e. Scooty bearing No. CG- 04-MR-7505, which was driven by respondent No.01 and owned by respondent No.2 herein. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs.22,51,396/- as total compensation with interest @ 09% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.20,797/- per month which should be Rs.20,997/- after adding the amount of Tribal Allowance, as the deceased was working as Peon in the Education Department. Further, learned Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding Rs.15,000/- each on the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas it ought to have been Rs.16,500/- each. Even, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded total Rs.1,00,000/- on the heads of loss of consortium to the appellants, which ought to have been granted Rs.44,000/- for each of the appellants. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of Page No.5 of 7 IN MAC-286-2022 deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. However, learned counsel pointed out that since the State Government has also ready granted Rs.37,000/- to the appellants as funeral expenses, therefore, no amount under the head of funeral expenses has to be granted. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased- Smt. Balmati Kashyap to be Rs.20,797/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, since the deceased was working as Peon in the Education Department and used to get Tribal Allowance, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.20,997/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, on the head of loss of estate Rs.15,000/- has been awarded, whereas it ought to have been Rs.16,500/- and on the heads of loss of consortium to the appellants Rs.1,00,000/- have only been awarded, but it ought to have been awarded Rs.44,000/- for each of the appellant. Even, the learned Claims tribunal has erred in making deduction double i.e. 1/2 & 1/3, which ought to have been deducted only 1/3 under the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, since it has Page No.6 of 7 IN MAC-286-2022 been pointed out that Rs.37,000/- has already been granted to the appellants for funeral expense of the deceased, therefore, I am not inclined to grant any amount under the said head to the appellants and, as such, the amount of Rs.15,000/- granted by the learned Claims Tribunal on the head needs to be deducted. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.20,797 x 12 = Rs.2,49,564/- Rs.20,997 x 12 = Rs.2,51,964/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 50% (i.e. Rs.1,24,782/-) = Rs.3,74,346/- (+) 50% (i.e. Rs.1,25,982/-) = Rs.3,77,946/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 and after more 1/3 = Rs.1,24,788/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.1,25,982/-) = Rs.2,51,964/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = Rs.21,21,396/- (x) 17 = Rs. Rs.42,83,388/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- NIL 7. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,00,00/- Rs.44,000/- x 3 = 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.7 of 7 IN MAC-286-2022 Rs.1,32,000- Total Rs.22,51,396/- Rs.44,31,888/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.22,51,396/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.44,31,888/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.22,51,396/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.21,80,492/-. The concerned respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 02.02.2021 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if