Authority, Manager, Tp Hub Iind Floor, Rama Trade Center, Opposite Rajiv v. Baliram

Smt. Ghanshyama Bai, W/o Shri Baliram Painkara, Aged About 51 Years R/o Kanwar By Caste R/o Village Rajpur Uparpara P.S. And Tah. Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

Ku. Vindhyvashini Painkara D/o Shri Baliram Painkara Aged About 24 Years R/o Kanwar By Caste R/o Village Rajpur Uparpara P.S. And Tah. Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

Ku. Dileshwari Painkara, D/o Shri Baliram Painkara, Aged About 22 Years R/o Kanwar By Caste R/o Village Rajpur Uparpara P.S. And Tah. Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

Minor Chudamani Painkara, S/o Shri Baliram Painkara, Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Father Shri Baliram Painkara (Respondent No. 1), R/o Kanwar By Caste R/o Village Rajpur Uparpara P.S. And Tah. Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

Gajendra Prasad Chauhan, S/o Samdhar Chauhan, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bagbahara, P.S. Bagbahar, Tah. Patthalgaon District Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Driver)

Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o Anil Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years Office Address Prop. Anil Kumar Agrawal, Chandni Chowk, Raigarh, Hal Mukam Handi Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Owner Transporting) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondents No. 1 to 5 For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 2

07.10 .2025

The appellant has filed this appeal against award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gharghoda, District Raigarh in Claim Case No. 04/2020 dated 08.09.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 18,14,440/- with interest at the rate of 9% per anum from date of application. The learned Tribunal fastened liability with the Insurance company.

2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate would fairly submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation, but committed error while deducting 1/3rd for personal and living expenses of the deceased, whereas, the deceased was an unmarried person, and therefore, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 deduction should have been 50%. He would pray to modify the award accordingly.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate appearing for claimants would oppose. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation after appreciating oral and documentary evidence. He would further submit that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. On 09.07.2019, Umashankar Painkra and Surendra Painkra were returning to village Rajpur from Lailunga on motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 14 MD 6704 and near Motipur, driver of the offending Highwa bearing registration No. C.G. 13 Z 5425, driving rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, consequently, Umashankar Painkra sustained grievous injuries and died during course of treatment. The claimants are brother and sisters of the deceased. They pleaded that at the time of 3 accident, age of the deceased was 19 years and he was running a grain shop and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, thus, they claimed a sum of Rs. 47,54,000/-. The driver, owner as well as Insurance company filed reply to claim application and denied averments. The parties led evidence and the learned Tribunal passed an award.

6. The learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd for personal and living expenses of deceased, whereas, deceased was an unmarried, and therefore, according to law laid down in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% for personal and living expenses of the deceased. On other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation.

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 the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130, the award requires reconsideration and the same is being recomputing herein-below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court

3. Income Rs. 8,400/- x12 = Rs. 1,00,800/- Rs. 8,400/- x12 = Rs. 1,00,800/- Future Prospect (40%) = Rs. 40,320/- (40%) = Rs. 40,320/- Deduction (-) 1/3 Rs. 47,040/- Rs. 94,080/-

4. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs. 16,93,440/- (-) 1/2 Rs. 70,560/- Rs. 70,560/- (x) 18 = Rs. 12,70,080/- 4

Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- Loss of consortium (for claimant No. 1) Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- Loss consortium(for claimant No. 2) Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- TOTAL Rs. 18,14,440/- Rs. 13,91,080/-

8. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 18,14,440/- awarded by the tribunal is reduced by Rs. 4,23,360/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 4,23,360/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for total sum of Rs. 13,91,080/-. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as awarded by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.