Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.19 18:37:25 +0530 2025:CGHC:47459 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1917 of 2019 1. Smt. Dhaniya Bai Raut W/o Late Peelalal Raut Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Haldi, Post Dumarpani, Police Station And District Nuapada Odisha Present R/o Village Boirgaon, Post Kasekera, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh...............Applicants/claimants), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2. Hemlal Raut S/o Late Peelalal Raut Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Haldi, Post Dumarpani, Police Station And District Nuapada Odisha Present R/o Village Boirgaon, Post Kasekera, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh...............Applicants/claimants), : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh District 3. Ku. Meena Raut D/o Late Peelalal Raut Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Haldi, Post Dumarpani, Police Station And District Nuapada Odisha Present R/o Village Boirgaon, Post Kasekera, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh...............Applicants/claimants), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Jaiprakash Patel S/o Durgaprasad Patel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Beharpali, Police Station And Tahsil Balangir, District Balangir Odisha Chhattisgarh......Non Applicant No. 1, (Dirver Of Vehicle Toyota Etios Car Bearing Registration No. Od 03 Od 1212), District : Balangir, Orissa 2. Nitesh Agrawal S/o Tolas Ram Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Ramji Para, Police Station And Tahsil Balangir, District Balangir Odisha ......Non Applicant No. 2, (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Toyota Etios Car Bearing Registration No. Od 03 Od 1212), District : Balangir, Orissa 3. The Branch Manager The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Krishna Complex, 2nd Floor, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ......Non Applicant No. 3, (Insurer Of Vehicle Toyota Etios Car Bearing Registration No. Od 03 Od 1212), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants For Respondent No. 3
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey 2 Order on Board 16. 09.2025 1. The claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against award passed by learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. H-04/2017 dated 30.11.2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal directed the Insurance company to make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- on account of death of Peelalal Raut and Rs. 64,299/- on account of injury sustained by appellant No. 1/Daniya Bai, with interest at the rate of 6%. 2. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that Peelalal Raut was a Carpenter and at the time of accident his age was 43 years. He would further submit that his motorcycle was dashed by the offending vehicle bearing registration No. OD 03 1212 on 20.06.2016, consequently, he sustained injuries and died during course of treatment. He would also submit that the claimants are wife and children of the deceased. He would contend that the learned claims tribunal failed to apply proper multiplier. He would also contend that as per Postmortem report (P.M. report), age of the deceased was 43 years, whereas, in the claim application, it was pleaded 44 years, but learned Tribunal considered age between 46 to 50 years without their being any evidence and applied multiplier of 13 instead of 14. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the appellants No. 2 & 3, who are children of the deceased. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 3. On the other hand Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate appearing for the Insurance company would submit that joint claim application was filed on account of death of Peelalal Raut and injury sustained by Smt. Dhaniya Bai. He would 3 further submit that the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- for death of Late Peelalal Raut and Rs. 64,299/- for injuries sustained by the appellant No. 1. With regard to grounds raised by Mr. Pandya, he would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award and the claimants failed to adduce clinching evidence to establish the age of the deceased. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, in the claim application, the claimants mentioned the age of the deceased 44 years and according to P.M. report, age of the deceased was 43 years; therefore, it can safely be held that age of the deceased was between 41 to 45 years at the time of death and proper multiplier would be 14 but the learned Tribunal considered age of the deceased between 46 – 50 years and applied multiplier of 13, which appears to be erroneous. Further, the learned Tribunal has not passed award for loss of consortium in favour of the claimants No. 2 & 3(son and daughter) of the deceased. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal requires consideration. 6. However, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered monthly income of the deceased Rs. 6,000/-; 25% for loss of future prospects and deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased looking to the number of dependents. Therefore, under these heads, there is no scope for interference. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 64,299/- under the head of medical treatment to appellant No. 1, which does not require any interference. 7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 4 the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this COurt 1. Income Rs. 6,000 x12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- 2. Future Prospect 25% = Rs. 18000/- 25% = Rs. 18000/- (Rs. 90000/-) (Rs. 90000/-) 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 Rs. 30,000/- = (-) 1/3 Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 60,000/- 4. Multiplier (x) 13 = Rs. 7,80,000/- (x) 14 = Rs. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- 8,40,000/- Rs. 19,500/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 19,500/- 5. 6. 7. Medical Treatment Rs. 64,299/- Rs. 64,299/- 7. 8. 9. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 2) NIL Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 3) NIL Rs. 52,000/- Rs. 52,000/- Rs. 52,000/- TOTAL Rs. 9,14,299/- Rs. 10,99,299/- 8. For the foregoing reasons, the amount of compensation of Rs. 5 9,14,299/- awarded by the learned tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 10,99,299/-. Hence, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- . The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 9. The respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal. The rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain the same. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is partly allowed. $iddhant Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge