1 / 8 2025:CGHC:34888 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 386 of 2024 1. Manju Bai Verma W/o Gendlal Verma, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Jogi Dalli, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Bhuvaneswar Verma S/o Late Gendlal Verma, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Jogi Dalli, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku. Thaneswari Verma D/o Late Gendlal Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Jogi Dalli, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4. Kameshwar Verma S/o Late Gendlal Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Jogi Dalli, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Mohan Lal Janghel S/o Punaram Janghel, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Daujari P.S. Gandai, District Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh (Owner/driver) 2. S.B.I. General Insurance, Natraj 301 Junction Of Westewrn Express Highway And Andheri Kurla Raod, Andheri (East), Mumbai -400 069, Note-In Lower Court Cause Title Address Was Incomplete. (Insurance Company Of Offending Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shubham Rao, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 / 8 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 22/7/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 31.1.2024 in Claim Case No.143/2022 for the death of deceased Gendlal Verma in a road traffic accident. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellants-claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- under various heads, against death of Gendlal Verma in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are widow and children of deceased, on 13.12.2021 when said Gendlal Verma was going to Gandai from village Jogidalli, motorcycle bearing registration mark CG07-AJ-3115, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed Gendlal Verma as a result he fell down, sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. It was pleaded by claimants that on the date of accident, deceased was 55 years old, he was working in Jila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Gandai and getting monthly salary of Rs.86,528/-. Deceased was also deriving income from 06 acre agriculture land which he received in family partition. Claimants were dependent on the income of deceased and due to his sudden demise, they suffered loss of income. 3 / 8 3. Non-applicant No.1, driver-cum-owner of offending motorcycle filed reply to claim application pleading that son of deceased was granted appointment on compassionate ground; the widow of deceased was getting family pension and even they are carrying out agriculture activities and hence, they are not entitled to get compensation. At the time of accident non-applicant No.1-driver was having valid and effective driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3 and therefore, any compensation is awarded to claimants then insurance company is liable to pay the same. 4. Non-applicant No.2-Insurance Company also filed a separate reply denying the averments made in claim application including occupation of deceased and income therefrom. It was pleaded that deceased was riding motorcycle in wrong direction that too without wearing helmet and as such, principle of contributory negligence attracts in the present case. Driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by non-applicant No.1 which resulted in death of deceased; there was no element of contributory negligence or breach of any of the conditions of insurance 4 / 8 policy while plying offending vehicle on road. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded compensation of Rs.48,06,351/- and fastened liability upon non-applicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the award. 6. Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that income of deceased has not been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. He next contended that standard deduction of one- third towards personal expenses of deceased is not correct and the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted one-fourth looking to number of dependents family members. Learned Claims Tribunal further erred in not awarding amount towards loss of consortium to all the dependent family members of deceased. Therefore, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case. 9. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, in order to prove income of deceased the claimants have produced salary slip Ex.P-22 for the month of November, 2022 according to which gross salary of deceased was Rs.86,528/- which includes amount towards basic, DA, HRA, Medical and 5 / 8 conveyance allowance. Deductions were also shown in salary towards PF, UC, GSLI, Income Tax, Karamchari Kalyan Kosh, personal loan, standard deduction, car loan. The Claims Tribunal while determining income of deceased has not added deductions from salary towards Union Contribution, Society No.3, personal loan, car loan, standard deduction. It is well settled that only permissible deduction from the salary of the deceased is income tax, other deductions from salary cannot be treated to be statutory deductions. As such, a sum of Rs.8,100/- towards income tax would only be deductible from the gross salary of deceased. The Claims Tribunal erred in not treating other deductions towards loan etc. shown in salary of deceased as income of the deceased. Thus, after deducting Rs.8,100/- from gross salary of deceased i.e. Rs.86,528/-, net salary of the deceased would come to Rs.78,428/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. So far as deduction of one-third from the income of deceased towards his personal expenses is concerned, there is no suggestive piece of evidence on record to show that major sons of the deceased are married, residing separately with their family and having independent source of income. In absence of such evidence, the sons though major cannot be presumed to have not taking help from their father in any manner for the purpose of their livelihood, particularly when the deceased father was having handsome income of Rs.86,528/- per month. The Claims Tribunal while deducting 6 / 8 one-third has not assigned any reason for recording finding that claimant-major sons cannot be treated to be dependent upon the deceased. If for any reason the Claims Tribunal comes to the conclusion that major sons are not dependent on deceased, it is for the Claims Tribunal to assign specific reason in this regard, which is missing. 11. In view of above discussion, in the opinion of this Court, appropriate deduction towards personal expenses of deceased would be one-fourth and not one-third as was done by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 12. So far as submission regarding agriculture income of deceased is concerned, agricultural land remains in possession of the claimants after death of deceased. Agricultural activities even during lifetime might be done through other persons as the deceased was in permanent employment in co-operative society and hence, claimants have not suffered loss of agricultural income. They can earn income from agricultural field. 13. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- each to the widow and daughter of deceased only. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the children and parents of victim died in a road accident are also entitled for consortium under the head ‘parental consortium’. Thus, other claimants 7 / 8 being sons of the deceased would also be entitled to parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Addition of future prospects to the assessed income of deceased; multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal to assess the loss of dependency and award of compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses with increase of 10% is in consonance with the law in this regard and the same need no interference. 15.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to claimants/appellants. 16.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.78,428/- per month and after adding 15% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.90,192/- and annual income would be Rs.10,82,304/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as held above, and after deducting one-fourth, loss of dependency would come to Rs.8,11,728/-. Applying multiplier of 11, as applied by Claims Tribunal, loss of dependency would be Rs.89,29,008/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 to 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- each towards parental consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.16,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.16,500/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation for which now appellants-claimants are entitled, comes to Rs.91,38,008/- 8 / 8 The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. 17.In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/