Ganga Bai v. Jitendra Sahu

: Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate. For respondent no.3 : Mr. G. V. K. Rao, Advocate For respondents 1 & 2 : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 24/07/2026

#1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 22.09.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims 2 Tribunal, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 21/2019 whereby a total compensation of Rs, 9,10,000/- has been awarded for the death of deceased.

#2. Claimants pleaded that deceased Sanjay Sharma died in a motor accident took place on 10.11.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Appellant no.1 is widow and appellants 2 & 3 are sons of deceased. They being legal heirs filed claim application seeking a total compensation of Rs. 88 lakhs on various heads.

#3. The learned claims Tribunal on took the annual income of deceased as Rs.6000/-. Further finding the age of deceased to be 42 years and looking to the number of dependents, added 25% future prospectus, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 14 and thus worked out the total loss of dependency at Rs.8,40,000/-. Further more, Rs. 70,000/- has been awarded on other heads. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 9,10,000/- has been awarded for the death of deceased in favour of the appellants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realisation.

#4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income taken by the deceased was on lower side. He next submits that the loss of parental and filial consortium must be granted to each dependent individually, rather than as a joint lump-sum figure and as such, just compensation has not been awarded, therefore, the impugned award may suitably be enhanced.

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

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

#7. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was doing the job of driver and was earning Rs.1,44,000/- per annum. In absence of any clinching and admissible evidence, it would be appropriate to take monthly income of deceased at Rs.8140/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages applicable at the time incident instead of lesser income of Rs.6000/- per month taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has 3 found the age of deceased to be 42 years and there are 3 claimants. Therefore, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it has rightly added 25% future prospects; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and applied multiplier

#14. It has further granted a lumpsum figure of Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium for all the 3 claimants. Under Motor Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established that every dependent is entitled to a separate compensation for the loss of parental and filial consortium. Thus each claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- separately and the total comes to Rs.1,20,000/- under this head.

#8. In the light of the above 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 Court

#4. Total dependency or loss of income 8,40,000/- Rs.8140 x 12 = 97,680/- plus 25% Future Prospects i.e. 24,420/- = 1,22,100 minus 1/3rd deduction of personal expenses i.e., 40,700/- = 81,400 x multiplier 14 = 11,39,600 Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Loss of consortium or loss of love and affection 40,000/- x 3 40,000 dependents 1,20,000/- Total Rs. 9,10,000/- Rs. 12,89,600/-

#9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 4 9,10,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 12,89,600/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 9,10,000/- the appellants held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.3,79,600/-. 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.

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