Santoshi Bai Kashyap v. Manoj Kumar Sahu

3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Office Address- First Floor Agrawal Chaimber, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Thana Civi Line, 2 District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ------(Insurance Company Of Vehicle Motorcycle ... Respondents No. C.G.-22-U-8565) For the appellants : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 14/07/2026

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 03.09.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 182/2023 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.16,47,000/- as a compensation for the death of deceased.

2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 28.05.2023, deceased Rakesh Kashyap was returning to his village Limhi on Motorcycle bearing Regn. No. CG.10- B.E/7068 after visiting a Mandir at Bansajhal. On the way when he reached at Gamju turn near village Pali, respondent no.1 who was driving the offending motorcycle No. CG 22-U-8565 in rash and negligent way hit the deceased’s motor cycle, resultantly the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the said accident and died during treatment on

30.05.2023. Appellant No.1 is widow of deceased, appellant no.2 is the minor son and appellant no.3 is father of deceased. Appellants 1 to 4 3 being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 48 lakhs on various heads.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimants have pleaded that the deceased was working as Head Mistry and his income was Rs. Rs.16,000/-, but the learned Claims Tribunal has taken the income of deceased as Rs.9960/- per month. He further submits that there are four dependents in this case, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% to the income of deceased instead of 25%; further the deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th and not 1/3rd. The amounts granted under the conventional heads are also meagre, thereby, just compensation has not been awarded. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the appellants have failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in taking the income of the deceased as per the Minimum Wages Act applicable to an unskilled labour and thus it has passed the just award which needs no interference.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

6. In absence of any evidence regarding income of deceased, the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.9960/-. Since the age of deceased was found to be 40 years, following the case-law laid down by Supreme Court, it has further rightly 4 added 25% future prospectus, deducted 1/3th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 15 and thus worked out the total loss of dependency at Rs.14,94,000/-, which cannot be said to be on lower side.

7. The Tribunal has not considered appellant no.4 Chain Kumari to be dependent of deceased as she happens to be a paternal aunt of deceased. Counsel for the appellants submits that appellant no.4 was residing with deceased’s family, therefore, she was also a dependent on deceased, however, she was not considered to be dependent.

8. If Chain Kumari was residing with the deceased and was financially supported by them, she suffered a tangible loss of dependency. Even if her primary claim of dependency is challenged, she is still entitled to compensation for loss of estate and love and affection as a legal heir. Therefore, the amount of Rs.1,53,000/- granted by Tribunal under other heads needs to be enhanced.

9. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid 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 the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court

1. Total dependency Rs.9960 x 12 =119520 plus Future Prospectus 25% 29880 =149400 minus 1/3rd deduction of personal expenses i.e., 49800 = 99600 x 15 5 multiplier = 14,94,000/- 14,94,000/- (unchanged)

4. Loss of estate 16,500/- 18,000/- Funeral expenses 16,500/- 18,000/- Loss of consortium or loss of love and affection 40,000/- x 3 dependents 48,000 x 4 dependents 1,20,000/- 1,92,000/- Total Rs. 16,47,000/- 17,22,000/-

10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.16,47,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,22,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.16,47,000/-, the appellants held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.75,000/-. 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. Out of the enhanced amount, Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to Appellant No.4 Chain Kumari.

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