Smt. Gangotri Bai Bhoyar Wd/o Late Ishwar Prasad v. Pritam Ghansi

: Mr. Abhishek Nirala , Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Gunjan Rani Agarwal, on behalf of Shekhar Rao Saheb Amin, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 31/07/2026

#1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by claimants seeking enhancement and challenging the award dated 03.02.2025 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident 2 Claims Tribunal, Bastar (Jagdalpur) in Claim Case No. 185/2023 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 27,92,361/- has been granted for death of the deceased.

#2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Ishwar Prasad Bhoyar died on 16.5.2023 on account of serious injuries sustained in a motor accident took place on 15.05.2023, which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Appellant no.1 is widow and appellant no.2 is son of the deceased. They being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs on various heads.

#3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income worked out by the Tribunal is on lower side, thereby, just compensation has not been granted. He prays that the award be suitably enhanced.

#4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the Tribunal has passed the just award which needs no interference.

#5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

#6. Considering the nature of job and the Pay-Slip (Ex.A-16-A) produced by the claimants, the Tribunal has rightly taken the established monthly income as Rs. 27,483/- and worked out the annual income as Rs.3,29,796/- which cannot be said to be on lower side. It further added 10% future prospects to the income which according to the learned counsel for the appellants is lesser. As per the landmark Supreme Court ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the future prospects to be added for a permanent government employee in the age group of 50 to 60 years is 15% of the established salary. In this case, since the deceased was found to be the age group of 51 – 55 years, 15% future prospects ought to have been 3 added. The Tribunal has correctly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses from the income and applied multiplier 11 which is in conformity with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Further more, under the other conventional heads, following the formula of 10% automatic enhancement it has rightly granted Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2) for loss of consortium/loss of love and affection for the two claimants which cannot be said to be on lower side.

#7. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as below : Sl.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court

#1. Total dependency loss of 26,60,361/- Rs. 27,483 X 12 = = plus 3,29,796/- Future Prospectus- 15% i.e., 49,469/- = 3,79,265/- 1/3rd deduction of expenses personal = i.e.,1,26,422 2,52,843 x multiplier 11 = 27,81,273/-

#4. Loss of estate 18,000/- 18,000/- Funeral expenses 18,000/- 18,000/- Loss of consortium or loss of love and affection (48000 x 2) (48000 x 2) 96,000/- 96,000/- 4 Total Rs 27,92,361/- 29,13,273/-

#8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 27,92,361/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs 29,13,273/- Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 27,92,361/- the appellants held entitled for an additional sum of Rs 1,20,912/- The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

#9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated here-in-above. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao