Ranjeet Sharma v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

1 - Ranjeet Sharma S/o Shri Munshi Sharma Aged About 40 Years Resident of Ganga Nagar Ward, Talab Gali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), (Driver of Offending Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. CG-17/KU-1805). 2 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited through Incharge Officer, Office At First Floor, Walfort Ozone Complex, Bilaspur Road, Fafadeeh Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh),(Insurer Of Offending Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. CG-17/KU- 1805) ... Respondents For the appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For respondent no.2 : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate 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 09.09.2024 passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 1296 of 2021.

#2. Claimants pleaded that deceased Ishak Anka died on 07.02.2021 in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of one Ranjeet Sharma. Respondent no.1 is owner of the offending motorcycle. There are 3 claimants in this case. Appellant no.1 is mother and appellants 2 & 3 are brothers of deceased. They being legal heirs filed claim application seeking a total compensation of Rs. 47,50,000/- on various heads.

#3. The learned claims Tribunal took the monthly income of deceased at Rs.9000/-. Looking to the age of deceased and number of dependents, itfurther added 40% future prospectus, deducted one-half towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 18 and thus worked out the total loss of dependency at Rs.13,60,800/- Further more, Rs. 77,000/- has been granted under other conventional heads. Thus a total compensation has been worked to Rs. 14,37,800/-.

#4. The Tribunal held that there was a contributory negligence in this case, therefore, after deducting 50%, the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,18,900/- with further interest @ 7.5% per annum.

#5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the the income taken by the tribunal is on lower side. He next submits that there are 3 claimants in this case and the Tribunal has granted loss of consortium for only for the mother and the other 2 dependents have been excluded, therefore, the impugned award may suitably be enhanced.

#6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2/Insurer submits that the Tribunal has passed the just award which needs no interference. 3

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

#8. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- by doing the job of Carpenter. In absence of any documentary evidence regarding the income and job of deceased, the income taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on lower side. The Tribunal has found the age of deceased to be 20 years and was unmarried. There are 3 claimants in this case. Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it has rightly added 40% future prospects; deducted one-half towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 18.

#9. The Tribunal has granted loss of consortium for only one dependent. 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.44,000/- separately and the total comes to Rs. 1,32,000/- (44000 x 3).

#10. 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 Total dependency or loss of income Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by Court 13,60,800/- 13,60,800 Loss of estate 16,500/- 16,500/- Funeral expenses 16,500/- 16,500/- Loss of consortium or loss of love and affection (44000 x 1) 44,000/- (44000 x 3) 1,32,000/- Total Rs. 14,37,800/- 15,25,800/-

#4. 4

#11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 14,37,800/- computed by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,25,800/-. After deducting 50% contributory negligence, the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.7,62,900/- from which after deducting Rs.7,18,900/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled for an additional sum of Rs.44,000/-. 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.

#12. 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