1 2026:CGHC:18104 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 737 of 2024 1 - Smt. Durgesh Ravat W/o Lt. Lukesh Ravat Aged About 26 Years (Wife Of Deceased) R/o Sonpairi, P.O. - Mohdi, P.S. And Tehsil - Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (Cg) -------(Claimants) 2 - Yugal Ravat S/o Lt. Lukesh Ravat, Aged About 10 Months (Son Of Deceased) Minor Is Duly Represented By His Mother Appellant No.1 Smt. Durgesh Ravat W/o Lt. Lukesh Ravat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Sonpairi, P.O. -Mohdi, P.S. And Tehsil- Magarlod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) ---(Claimants) 3 - Smt. Khemin Bai W/o Murli Ravat, Aged About 44 Years (Mother Of Deceased), R/o Sonpairi, P.O. -Mohdi, P.S. And Tehsil- Magarlod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) --- (Claimants) 4 - Murli Ravat S/o Jagat Ravat, Aged About 46 Years (Father Of Deceased) R/o Sonpairi, P.O. -Mohdi, P.S. And Tehsil- Magarlod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) – -(Claimants) ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - Tarun Kumar S/o Gajanand Rao, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village-Dabrapara, P.S. And Tehsil- Parkhanda, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) -----(Driver Of Car No. Cg 04 Nk 7911) ---(Non- Applicant) 2 - Chitrasen Sahu S/o Purushottam Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Shikshak Colony, Kurud, P.S And Tahsil-Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ---(Owner Of Car No. Cg 04 Nk 7911) (Non-Applicant) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through- Branch Manager, Address- Sihawa Chowk, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ---(Insurance Company Of Car No. Cg 04 Nk 7911) (Non-Applicants) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 3 : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 2 21.04.2026 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Series Court, Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) (for short, “the learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 57/2023. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 16,82,120/- to the appellants/claimants on account of the death of deceased Lukesh Ravat in a motor accident that occurred on 10.04.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-04-NK-7911, driven by respondent No. 1, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased Lukesh Ravat was aged about 26 years and was working as a labourer, earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants were wholly dependent upon his income, Therefore, the claimants have filed the application seeking compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. 4) Respondent No. 1 & 2 (driver and owner) filed their joint written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company), in the usual course, also denied the averments and further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues and, upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the aforesaid compensation. 3 6) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased, aged about 26 years, was a labourer earning Rs. 12,000/- per month; however, the learned Tribunal has assessed his income at only Rs. 7,800/-. It is further submitted that there are four dependents in the family, and it is extremely difficult to sustain such a family on the meagre income assessed by the Tribunal. Hence, enhancement of compensation is prayed for. 7) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 supports the award and submits that, in view of the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are just and proper, and the compensation awarded is fair and reasonable. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record. 9) Considering the evidence available on record, it is evident that the deceased was a labourer and that four dependents were relying upon his income, including his young widow aged about 26 years, one minor son aged about 10 months, and his mother aged about 44 years and his father aged about 46. The deceased was about 26 years of age at the time of the accident. Taking into account the nature of work, number of dependents, age of the deceased, date of accident, and the prevailing minimum wages at the relevant time, this Court is of the view that the income pleaded by the claimants appears reasonable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering inflationary trends, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 10,000/-, which can safely be taken as a reasonable income for sustaining a family of four dependents. 10) In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- 4 S.N Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the deceased 10,000/- 2. Future Prospects @ 40% 4,000/- 3. Total Income 14,000/- 4. Total Yearly Income 14,000 X12= 1,68,000/- 5. Personal expenditure (1/4) 1,68,000/4= 42000/- 6. Net Income 1,68,000-42000= 1,26,000/- 7. Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency 1,26,000 X17= 21,42,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses as awarded by the Tribunal 16,500/- 9. Loss of estate as awarded by the Tribunal 16,500/- 10. Spousal Consortium as awarded by the Tribunal 44,000/- 11 Parental Consortium to the appellant No. 2 as awarded by the Tribunal 40,000/- 12 Filial Consortium to the appellants No. 3 & 4 as awarded by the Tribunal 40000x2=80000 Total compensation 23,39,000/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 16,82,120/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 23,39,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,56,880/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,56,880/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal 08.04.2024. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12) The respondent No. 3–Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of sixty (60) days from today. Upon such deposit being made, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 2 in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in any Nationalized Bank until he attains 5 the age of majority. A sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1 in FDR in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. Rs. 50,000/- each shall be disbursed to the appellants No. 3 & 4. The balance amount shall be released to appellant No. 1 by way of bank transfer/account payee cheque. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyoti