1 CGHC010214862022 2026:CGHC:41818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR The date which the case is reserved for order The date when Judgment is pronounced The date when the Judgment is uploaded 16-09-2026 25-9-2026 26-9-2026 MAC No. 819 of 2022 1 - Smt. Dhan Bai W/o Late Shri Bhagchand Madhukar Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Thelki, Police Station - Palari, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Manish Madhukar S/o Late Shri Bhagchand Madhukar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Thelki, Police Station - Palari, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Charan Kumar Madhukar S/o Late Shri Bhagchand Madhukar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Thelki, Police Station - Palari, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapra (C.G.) 4 - Ku. Damini Madhukar S/o Late Bhagchand Madhukar Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Thelki, Police Station - Palari, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Appellants 2 versus 1 - Dhaneshwar Singh S/o Shri Sonsai Kanwar Aged About 35 Years The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Industrial Estate, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Truck No. C.G.-15- Dh-8128) Valid From 03-06-2019 To 02-06-2020, Policy No. 193300/31/2020/2120 2 - Sandeep Gupta S/o Shri Ramadhar Gupta Aged About 27 Years R/o Bazarpara, Lakhanpur, Police Station - Lakhanpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Truck No. C.G.- 15-Dh-8128) 3 - The Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Industrial Estate, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Truck No. C.G.-15-Dh-8128) Valid From 03-06-2019 To 02-06- 2020, Policy No. 193300/31/2020/2120 --- Respondents For appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Praveen Tulsiyan, Adv. For Respondent No. 1 and 2 : None (HON’BLE MR. SANTOSH SHARMA, J.) CAV JUDGMENT 1 This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabajar (for short “the Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 36/2020 vide award dated 10-01-2022. 2 Facts of the case as projected in the claim petition are that, on 3 08.11.2019 at 6.00 pm, the deceased Bhagchand Madhukar had gone to village Bharuwadih from where he was walking towards his home in village Thelki. He had reached near the heavy transport garage when a truck bearing registration No. CG 15 DH 8128, being driven rashly and recklessly by its driver in the wrong direction, hit him and caused an accident, as a result of which he died on the spot. 3 The appellants/claimants, who are the wife and children of deceased Bhagchand Madhukar, had filed an application under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), claiming compensation of Rs.40,66,000/- on account of his death in a motor accident that occurred on 08-11-2019. The Tribunal, however, awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,64,000/- as compensation, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till its actual payment. 4 Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding an inadequate amount of compensation despite the evidence available on record. It is contended that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side. It has further applied a multiplier on the lower side. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought to have assessed 25% towards future prospects of income of the deceased instead of 10%. It is further submitted that respondents No.2 and 3 are also entitled to compensation, being dependent 4 upon the deceased; however, no compensation has been awarded to them on the ground that they are major sons. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the instant appeal may be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 5 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal, after duly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly awarded the compensation. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7 In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should neither be a meager amount nor a bonanza. 8 Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 6,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case? 9 So far as income of the deceased is concerned, though the claimants have adduced Ex. P-20, which is a certificate mentioning that deceased was paid payment of Rs. 26,000/- to 28,000/- per month, but learned Tribunal has rightly held that the income of the deceased has not been proved. In absence of relevant documents, learned 5 Tribunal has rightly assessed notional income of the deceased Rs. 6,000/- per month, i.e. Rs. 72,000/- p.a.. 10 The learned Tribunal has held appellants No. 1 and 4 to be dependents of the deceased, whereas appellants No. 2 and 3 have not been held to be dependents. However, on perusal of the record, it is found that there is nothing on record to establish that appellants No. 2 and 3 were self-dependent or were not dependent upon the deceased. The respondents have also not adduced any material to establish otherwise. Therefore, appellants No. 2 and 3 are also held to be dependents of the deceased. Thus, there being four dependents, there would be deduction of 25% of 72,000/- towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, thus, loss of income comes to Rs. 54,000/-. Taking the age of deceased as 55 years abd applying multiplier of 10, as per the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 5,40,000/- 11 Further, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, considering the age of the deceased i.e. 55 years, an addition of 10% towards future prospects is warranted. Accordingly, after adding a sum of Rs. 54,000/- towards future prospects, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,94,000/-. 12 In addition thereto, the claimants are entitled to ₹15,000/- 6 towards loss of estate, 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of consortium. ₹ 13 Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the following heads:- Sl. No. Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,40,000/- Rs. 5,40,000/-. 2. Future prospect Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 54,000/- Towards loss of consortium. Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 3. Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs. 6,64,000/- Rs. 6,64,000/- 14. In view of above, the appellants No. 2 and 3 are also entitled to the compensation along with appellants No. 1 and 4. They shall be entitled to 25% each from above compensation. Rest of the conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 15. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified accordingly. Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) Judge Pathak AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.09.26 12:21:11 +0530