Jaikumar Sidar v. Vikram Purti

For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Advocate For respondent No. 3 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board

23.04.2026 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 22.10.2021 passed by the Court of 2 learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) (for short, “the learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 58/2021. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 09,77,200/- to the appellants/claimants on account of the death of deceased Yogesh Sidar in a motor accident that occurred on 29.07.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-13-LA-2504, 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 Yogesh Sidar was aged about 22 years and was working as a labourer, earning Rs. 13,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants were wholly dependent upon his income, Therefore, the claimants have filed the application seeking compensation of Rs. 34,08,000/- 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 five issues and, upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the aforesaid compensation. 6) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased, aged about 22 years, was a labourer earning Rs. 13,000/- per month; however, the learned Tribunal has assessed his income at only Rs. 6000/-, which warrants suitable enhancement. It is further submitted that there are 4 dependents in the family, and it is extremely 3 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 respondents 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 two dependents were relying upon his income and the deceased was about 22 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 assessed by the Claims Tribunal was on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering inflationary trends, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 8,500/-. 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:- S.N Particular Awarded by this Court

#2. 3. 4. 5.

#6. Monthly Income of the 8,500/- deceased Future Prospects @ 40% 3400/- Total Income Total Yearly Income Personal expenditure 11,900/- 11,900 X12= 1,42,800/- 1,42,800/2= 71,400/- (1/2) Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of 71,400 X18= 12,85,200/-

#9. 4 dependency Funeral Expenses as 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal Loss of estate as 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal Filial Consortium Appellants No. 1 & 2 Total compensation 40000x2=80,000/- 13,95,200/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 9,77,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,95,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 9,77,200/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,18,000/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal 07.04.2022. 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. 2,00,000/- each shall be invested in the name of appellants No.1 and 2 in FDR in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. The balance amount shall be released to appellant No. 2 by way of bank transfer/account payee cheque. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyoti