1 CGHC010447482024 2026:CGHC:41279 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2428 of 2024 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through- Near LiC Building, Station Road, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Insurer of Offending Vehicle CG-07/CA-3366). (Non-Applicant No. 3/insurance Company) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Narayani Devi W/o. Late Yad Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o. Village- Pendri, Post- Kalangpur, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Dist. Balod (C.G.). 2 - Dhaneshwari D/o. Late Yad Ram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o. Village- Pendri, Post- Kalangpur, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Dist. Balod (C.G.). 3 - Sangeeta D/o. Late Yad Ram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o. Village- Pendri, Post- Kalangpur, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Dist. Balod (C.G.). 4 - Bheneshwari D/o. Late Yad Ram Aged About 17 Years Minor, Through- Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Narayani Devi, R/o. Village- Pendri, Post- Kalangpur, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Dist. Balod (C.G.). 5 - Koushal Markam S/o. Anand Markam Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village - Baghmara, Police Station/tahsil/district - Balod (C.G.) (Driver of Offending Vehicle CG-07/CA-3366) (Non-Appliant No. 1). 6 - C.H. Kodand Rao S/o. C.H. Araiyya Aged About 52 Years R/o. Mother Teresa Ward, Dallirajhara, Police Station Rajhara, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod (C.G.) (Owner of Vehicle CG-07/CA-3366) (Non-Applicant No.2). ... Respondents 2 For the appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Sudhanshu K.Singh, Advocate For respondents 1 to 5 None Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 22.09.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the Insurer challenging the impugned award dated 18.09.2024 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 62/2022 whereby a total compensation of Rs.28,85,192/- has been awarded for the death of deceased. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, deceased Pokhanlal Sahu died in the accident occurred on 11.02.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Appellant No.1 is mother, appellants 2, 3 & 4 are sisters of deceased. They being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 51 lakhs on various heads. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurer submits that the deceased was bachelor aged about 21 years, therefore, while computing income, the Tribunal ought to have deducted one-half towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd for the reason that appellant no.2 Dhaneshwari was married sister and she is residing with her husband and another sister appellant no.3 Sangeeta got compassionate appointment and 3rd sister (appellant no.4) became major and she is also earning. He, therefore, submits that the 3 income taken by the Tribunal is also on higher side, thereby excessive award has been granted which needs interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record. 5. So far as the income of deceased, the claimants have produced document showing the details of monthly Salary vide Ex. P-24 issued by the office of District Fire Officer which shows the last wages drawn by deceased to be Rs.12,987/- (after necessary deductions) for the month of January, 2022. Accordingly, the Tribunal took the income of deceased as Rs.12,987/- which cannot be said to be on higher side. Since the age of deceased was found to be 21 years, following the case-law laid down by Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly added 50% future prospectus and applied proper multiplier of 18. 6. The deceased was unmarried bachelor of 21 years of age at the time of incident. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses from the income of deceased instead of one-half (½). Claimant Smt. Narayani Devi has been examined as A.W.1. She has admitted the fact that after death of her son Pokhanlal (deceased), her 2nd daughter Sangeeta got compassionate appointment in his place. She has also admitted the fact that her elder daughter Dhaneshwari was married and thereafter she is residing with her husband in matrimonial house. In view of such statement of mother (A.W.1), it would be appropriate to deduct one-half towards personal expenses of deceased instead of 1/3rd. 7. So far as it relates to consortium, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- for mother of deceased (respondent no.1) and the other claimant-sisters have been ignored and only Rs.5000/- has been granted for loss of love and affection. Under Motor Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established that 4 every individual claimant is entitled to a separate compensation for the loss of consortium. Thus each claimant is entitled to get Rs.44,000/- under this head and the total comes to Rs. 1,76,000/-. The amounts further granted by the Tribunal for loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- need to be slightly enhanced. Therefore, the award so made by the Tribunal is liable to be suitably modified. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as below : Sl.No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Total loss of dependency 28,05,192/- Rs.12,987 X 12 =1,55,844 plus Future Prospectus- 50% i.e.,77,922= 2,33,766 minus one- half (½) deduction of personal expenses i.e., 1,16,883 = 1,16,883 x 18 multiplier = 21,03,894/- (Changed) 2. Loss of estate 15,000/- 16,500/- 3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 16,500/- 4. Loss of consortium for claimants i.e., mother & 3 sisters (40,000 plus 5000) 45,000/- (44,000 x 4 claimants) 1,76,000/- 5 5. Mental agony and suffering 5,000/- … Total 28,85,192/- 23,12,894/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants are entitled to Rs.23,12,894/- and not Rs.28,85,192/- as granted by the Tribunal. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.23 17:21:12 +0530