Smt. Shyama Bai v. Kheman Lal Sahu

: Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) 2 Judgment on Board 23/07/2026

#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 12.06.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurud in Claim Case No. 135/2022 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 12,52,360/- has been awarded for the death of deceased Bharti.

#2. Claimant-appellant pleaded that her deceased daughter died in a motor accident took place on 26.09.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Appellant is the mother of deceased and she being a legal heir filed claim application seeking a total compensation of Rs. 55,20,000/- on various heads.

#3. The learned claims Tribunal took the monthly income of deceased as Rs.7800/-. Further finding the age of deceased to be 19 years and looking to the number of dependents, added 40% future prospectus, deducted ½ (one-half) towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 18 and thus worked out the total loss of dependency at Rs. 11,79,360/-. Further more, Rs. 73,000/- has been awarded on other heads.

#4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased has studied upto 12th Class and was earning Rs.20,000/- by conducting tuition, therefore, the income taken by the tribunal is on lower side. He next submits that amounts granted under the other conventional heads are also lesser, therefore, just compensation has not been awarded. He prays that the impugned award may suitably be enhanced.

#5. Learned counsel for respondent no.4/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 Tribunal took the income of deceased as Rs..7800/- treating her as 3 unskilled worker, which is on lesser side. In absence of any clinching and admissible evidence, looking to the prevalent market rates it would be appropriate to take monthly income of deceased at Rs.9,960/- - as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages applicable at the time incident instead of lesser income of Rs.7800/- taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has found the age of deceased to be19 years unmarried. Therefore, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it has rightly added 40% future prospects; deducted ½ (one- half) towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 18. The amounts granted under the other conventional heads i.e., Rs.16,500/- for funeral expenses; Rs.16,500/- for loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium appears to be slightly on lower side

#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 11,79,360/- Rs. 9,960 X 12 =1,19,520/- plus 40% Future Prospects i.e. 47,808/- = 1,67,328/- minus 1/2 deduction of personal expenses i.e., 83,664 = 83,664/- x multiplier 18 = 15,05,952/- Loss of estate 16,500/- 18,000/- Funeral expenses 16,500/- 18,000/- Loss of consortium or loss of love and affection 40,000/- (48,000 x 1 48,000/- 4 Total Rs. 12,52,360/- 15,89,952/-

#9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 12,52,360/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs 15,89,952/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.12,52,360/- the appellants held entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 3,37,592/- 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. Rao Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge