Churiya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) vs Raipur

3 - Umend Kumar S/o Late Shri Derharam Kanwar Aged About 12 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 11 Years In The Impugned Order) Is Being Represented Through His Natural Guardian I.E. Her Mother Namely Smt. Yashodabai, W/o Late Shri Derharam Kanwar, R/o H.No. 11, Ward No. 11, Village Barchatola, Post Jhitratola, Tehsil And Village Churiya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Chhagan Lal Kanwar @ Sakan Lal Kanwar S/o Shri Chamra Kanwar Aged About 67 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 66 Years In The Impugned Order), R/o H.No. 11, Ward No. 11, Village Barchatola, Post Jhitratola, Tehsil And Village Churiya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Sugunbai W/o Chhaganlal Kanwar Aged About 63 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 62 Years In The Impugned Order), R/o H.No. 11, Ward No. 11, Village Barchatola, Post Jhitratola, Tehsil And Village Churiya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 2 1 - Harjeet Singh S/o Karam Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o L.I.G. 43, Block No. 2, Himalaya Height, Devpuri, Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.),(Driver Of Offending Vehicle),....(Defendants) 2 - Ajay Singh Gill S/o Late Satwant Singh Gill Proprietor Gappu Mahendra Travels Pvt. Ltd. New Bus Stand Pandari, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.),..(Owner Of Offending Vehicle) 3 - Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Address - Block No. H-1 B, 2nd Floor, Housing Board Complex, New Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.),..(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent No. 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate : Ms. Meenakshi Gupta on behalf of Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 28/04/2026

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been preferred by appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated

13.10.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (for short, “the learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 29/2022.

2. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 9,32,500/- to the appellants/claimants on 3 account of the death of deceased Derharam in a motor accident that occurred on due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Bus bearing Registration No. CG 04 AB 1121, driven by respondent No. 1, owned by 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 Derharamm was aged about 47 years on the date of accident and was engaged in business of fisheries earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. The appellant no. 1 is wife of deceased and appellant no. 2 is minor daughter and appellant no. 3 is minor son of deceased. Therefore, the claimants have filed the application seeking compensation of Rs. 61,56,250/- on account of the death of the deceased.

4. Respondent No. 1 (driver) and respondent no. 2 (owner) filed his 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 permit 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 three issues and, upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the aforesaid compensation. 4

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in the computation of compensation by incorrectly assessing income of the deceased. She submits that the learned court below has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6000/- which is on lesser side. He was having a fish pond for which he had a lease, therefore, the income of the deceased shall be considered as Rs. 20,000/-.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 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. Ex. P/6 is the lease granted in favour of the deceased. The Tribunal though relied upon the deed however in absence of any other documentary evidence has not assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of said exhibit. It is not disputed that there was a lease deed in favour of the deceased nothing is available on record to show how much sale was generated through the fish pond. But the learned Tribunal committed error by assessing monthly income of Rs. 6000/-. There are 5 dependents on the income of the deceased including a widow, 2 minor children and aged parents. Thus, taking into consideration the nature of job; number of dependents; age of the deceased; and minimum wages 5 skilled labour; this Court is of the opinion that Rs. 12,000/- can be safely taken as monthly income of the deceased.

10. It is settled principle of law that just compensation has to be awarded. Compensation need not be a meagre amount of compensation nor a bonanza. Thus, 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:- S. No. PARTICULARS Awarded by this Court

1. Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 12,000/-

2. Future prospects @ 40% Rs. 12,000/- x 25% =

3. Enhanced monthly income Rs. 12,000/- + Rs. Rs. 3000/-

4. Annual income 3000/- = Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- x 12 = Rs. 1,80,000/-

5. Personal expenditure (1/4) Rs. 1,80,000/4 = Rs.

6. Net income 45,000/- Rs. 1,80,000 – Rs. 45,000 = Rs. 1,35,000/-

7. Multiplier of 13 applied to assess Rs. 67,200/- x 13 = total loss of dependency Rs.17,55,000/- 6

9. Funeral expenses Loss of estate

10. Spousal consortium

11. Medical expenditure

12. Total compensation Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/- Rs. 19,92,000/-

11. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 9,32,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 19,92,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 9,32,500/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 10,59,500/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of appeal, i.e.,

13.03.2021. 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. 3 lakhs each shall be invested in the name of appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in any Nationalized Bank for 3 years, 2 years and 5 years respectively. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- each shall be disbursed to appellant no. 4 and 5 by way of bank transfer/ account payee cheque. The balance amount shall be released to appellant No. 1 by way of bank transfer/account payee cheque. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Madhurima