AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 84 of 2016 Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, G. E. road, Beside Sky Maruti Dealer, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer)

---- Appellant Versus

1. Kunjlal Sahu S/o Manraj Sahu, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh Present address village Bhelkach, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Claimant)

2. Munulal S/o Chau Ram, Age 58 Years, R/o Village Tilthi, Thana Chilt, Tahsil and District Mirjapur (U.P.) (Owner)

3. Kailash Yadav S/o Late Jagnu Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Amravati, Thana Vindhyachal, Tahsil and District Mirjapur (U.P.) (Driver)

---- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Krishnakant Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

14.06.2024

1. This appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “M.V. Act”) is directed against the award dated 23.02.2015 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “Claims Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.17 of 2014, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part filed by claimant (respondent No.1) and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,11,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

2. It is an undisputed fact that claimant is major married son of deceased father namely Manraj Sahu.

3. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that, on

06.10.2013, at about 7.45 PM, Manraj Sahu (deceased) was returning to his house after nature’s call. On the main road of village Raghunathnagar within the ambit of Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur, a Truck bearing registration No.UP-63-T-1398 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) coming from Bangli, dashed Manraj Sahu, due to which, he fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur and Crime No.66 of 2013 was registered against respondent No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

4. The claimant being son of deceased Manraj Sahu filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the concerned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.9,07,500/- against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle.

5. On appreciation of pleadings, evidence and material placed on record by the respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal held that deceased was having its own Grocery and Garment shop and earning Rs.4,500/- per month i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses i.e. Rs.18,000/-, annual dependency of claimant was reckoned at Rs.36,000/- and by applying the multiplier of 11 looking to the age of deceased as 53 years, loss of dependency worked out to Rs.3,96,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, as such, Rs.4,11,000/- has been awarded to the claimant/respondent No.1 as total compensation.

6. Learned counsel for appellant/insurance company submits that as the claimant is major married son of deceased, he is not dependent upon the income of his father. He further submits that amount of compensation could not have been awarded to him except the amount of compensation towards loss of estate only. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding excessive amount of compensation, which needs to be reduced suitably. It is contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the