1 2026:CGHC:14366 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1411 of 2024 1 - Smt. Tripti Verma W/o Late Sunil Kumar Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Hathkhoj, Ward No. 2, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. 2 - Aditya Verma S/o Late Sunil Kumar Verma Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Gurdian Mother Tripti Verma, W/o Late Sunil Kumar Verma, R/o Village Hathkhoj, Ward No. 2, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. 3 - Mangal Chand Verma S/o Late Tope Singh Verma Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Hathkhoj, Ward No. 2, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. 4 - Triveni Verma W/o Mangal Chand Verma Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Hathkhoj, Ward No. 2, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - Jagdish Masih S/o Ramdhani Masih Aged About 48 Years R/o Chavni Chowk, Satnami Para, Ward No. 17, Police Station- Jamul, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle (Truck) Bearing No. C.G. 07-C.B.-0892) (Non -Applicant No. 1) 2 - Dhaniram Bhogade S/o Ramchandra Bhogade Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Ramnagar, Sahu Para, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle (Truck) Bearing No. C.G. 07-C.B.-0892) (Non -Applicant No. 2) 3 - Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Paras Complex, In Front Of State Bank Of India, Near Gurudwara, Station Road, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle (Truck) Bearing No. C.G. 07-C.B.-0892) (Non -Applicant No. 3) AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.07 18:28:25 +0530 2 ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Appellants : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Res. No. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : : None present, though served. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 25/03/2026 1. Calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned award dated 02.05.2024 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) {in short, “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 499 / 2021, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, “MV Act, 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants- claimants. 2. By the impugned award, leaned claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 36,13,750/- against the claim of Rs.61,00,000/- in favour of appellants/claimants on account of death of deceased – Sunil Kumar Verma in a motor accident that occurred on 14.02.2020 on account of rash & negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. CG-07CB-0892, driven by respondent No. 1- Jagdish Masih, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. 3. As per pleading made in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, deceased Sunil Kumar Verma on 14.02.2020 was going to Hathkhoj, Bhilai from Bafna Manglam in his car Verna bearing registration No. CG.07-B.E.-2594, while he was travelling at about 9-9.30 P.M, the truck bearing registration No. C.G.-07-C.B. -0892 was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly & negligently, without giving any signal or indicator changed his lane towards divider, consequently, back portion of the truck dashed the front 3 side of the car, as a result thereof, Sunil Kumar Verma sustained several injuries on his head, chest and oter part of the body and he was taken to Hospital where he was died during the course of treatment on 15.02.2020. 4. The appellants/claimants, who are unfortunate wife, son and parents of deceased Sunil Kumar Verma, filed the said petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 61,00,750/- stating inter alia that deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and was posted as a Legal and Probation Office in the Women & Child Development Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh where he was earning Rs.21,000/- per month. 5. The Respondent No. 1 & 2 proceeded ex parte and did not file any written statement. 6. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company filed written statement denying the substantial pleading made in the claim petition. It is pleaded that though the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of incident, but respondent No. 1 -driver did not have valid & effective driving licence at the time of Insurance Company to drive the offending vehicle. Further , the amount of compensation claimed by the appellants/claimants is shockingly on higher side, which deserves to be reduced suitably. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. CG-07CB-0892 by its driver Jagdish Masih/respondent No. 1; Sunil Kumar Verma, aged about 38 years, died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident; appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation to the claimants as it could not establish violation of policy 4 conditions, and assessed and awarded aforesaid sum in favour of the claimants. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was about 40 years of age and he was salaried employee. Learned Claims Tribunal though rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 21,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of compensation, however, committed in error of law in adding 25% of annual income of deceased towards future prospect instead of 30 %. Apart from this, no amount towards parental & filial consortium was awarded in favour of the claimants and, thus, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced suitably. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company while supporting the impugned award would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just & proper, which does not call for any interference in the instant appeal. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including record of the Claims Tribunal. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal found deceased to be aged about 40 years and as per evidence available on record, he was salaried employee in the Women & Child Development Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, instead of adding 25% towards future prospect in the annual income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal ought to have added 30 % towards future prospect in the annual income of the deceased while computing the amount of compensation in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. 5 Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein it has been held that if the deceased was having permanent job and he was aged between 40- 50 years at the time of incident, then 30% of his annual income be added while calculating his annual income. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal has also committed an error in not awarding any sum towards parental and filial consortium to the widow, son and parents of deceased. 12. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 21,000 x 12 = 2,52,000/- (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 30% (2,52,000 x 30% =75,600) 2,52,000+ 75,600 = 3,27,600/- (C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (3,27,600 x 1/4 =81,900) 3,27,600- 81,900 = 2,45,700/- (D) Multiplier of 15 2,45,700 x 15 = 36,85,500/- Rs. 36,85,500/- 2. Funeral Expenses + Loss of Estate +Mental agony : (+) Rs. 70,000/- 3. Loss of parental and filial consortium (+) Rs. 1,20,000/- Total compensation Rs. 38,75,500/- 13. In view of foregoing, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 36,13,750/-/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 38,75,500/-. The appellants are entitled for a further sum of Rs. 2,61,750/- over and above 6 the amount of Rs. 36,13,750/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of appeal i.e. 10.07.2024 till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 15. The respondent No. 3/Insurance Company Ltd. is granted two months’ time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 2,61,750/- along with interest before the concerned Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge ami