1 CGHC010361302024 2026:CGHC:42249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2023 of 2024 Deepak Kumar Dandsena S/o Late Gajendra Dandsena Aged About 23 Years R/o Village - Tarbod, Post - Tarba, District Nuapada Odisha, Pin - 766105 Present Address - By Shri Niranjan B C Village - Daundekala, Police Station - Vidhan Sabha, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Bhimraj Patel S/o Shri Ramadhar Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Padampur District - Nuapada Odisha, Pin Code - 766101 (Driver of Vehicle No. OD 26 B 3611). 2 - Ranbir Singh Khanuja S/o Shri Kulwant Singh Khanuja R/o Gurunanak Chowk Ward No. 2, Post and Police Station - Khariar District Nuapada Odisha Pin Code - 766107 (Owner of Vehicle No. OD 26 B 3611). 3 - The New India Assurance Company Limited through The Divisional Manager, Address The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office - 1, First Floor, Tank Business Tower, Above Karnataka Bank, Fafadeep Chowk, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh PIN Code - 492009 (Insurer of Vehicle No. OD 26 B 3611) ... Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For respondent no.1 : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For respondent no.3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) 2 Order on Board 28.09.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 155/2021 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 36,09,676/- has been awarded for the death of deceased Gajendra Dadsena. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 18.01.2020 Gajendra Dadsena and his wife Sudeshana Dadsena (died), their daughters Dulvi Dadsena and Riddhi Patra along with others were coming from Balangir towards Nuapada in Bolero Vehicle. On the way, at about 10.30 a.m., respondent no.1 driving the offending Truck No. OD-26-B/3611 in a rash and negligent manner hit the Bolero, as a result of which deceased Gajendra and his wife Sudeshna died on the spot due to grievous injuries sustained in the accident. Appellant is the major son of the deceased and he being legal heir filed claim application u/s 166 of M.V. Act seeking a total compensation of Rs.1,31,54,000/- on different heads. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was married person and the claimant was the major son of the deceased. He confines his argument only to the effect that Tribunal has made higher deduction of one-half (½) towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. He submits that a separate claim petition has been filed by the claimant for the death of his mother in the same accident wherein 1/3rd deduction was made while computing the income, therefore, it would be appropriate to 3 deduct 1/3rd in this case also instead of one-half (1/2). He prays that the appeal be allowed and the award may suitably be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that looking to the number of dependents and following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly deducted one-half which needs no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. At the time of incident, the deceased was working as Government Teacher. The claimant has produced salary slips of deceased vide Ex.P-7 to P-11 issued from Block Education Officer Komna. The pay slips of October & November, 2020 (Ex.P-10 & P-11) shows that the deceased was last drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs.47,943/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken his income as Rs.47,943/- per month. Since the age of deceased was found to be 53 years and looking to his prospective future income, it has rightly added 15% future prospects, deducted one-half and applied proper multiplier of 11. 7. As regards deduction towards expenses, the deceased was married person of 53 years age. The claimant claims to be the legal heir of the deceased. The appellant contends that a separate claim case was filed for the death of mother relating to the same accident wherein 1/3rd deduction was made by the Tribunal. Therefore, in this case also 1/3rd ought to have been deducted. 8. The Court cannot automatically apply 1/3rd deduction for the deceased father's personal expenses solely because a 1/3rd deduction was applied in the mother's separate claim case arising from the same accident. As per the decisions rendered in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 deductions for personal and living 4 expenses of the deceased depend strictly on the number of dependent financial claimants left behind by that specific deceased individual, not on the rulings of a parallel case. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted one-half towards expenses which cannot be said to be unreasonable or unsustainable. 9. Since the limited argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants has no force, I am not inclined to enhance the impugned award warranting interference in this Appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao