Compensation for accidental death should reflect the deceased's income based on minimum wage standards, ensuring all dependents receive appropriate entitlements.

For Appellants : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu PAWAN KUMAR Order On Board JHA

13/06/2025 Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

1. Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the award dated 02.05.2019 passed by Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 227/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 , 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 8,01,250/- as compensation in motor accidental death case.

2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 14.03.2018 at about 07.00 pm., in village Bade Kilepal Patelpara, Fagnu Poyam was going along the road to his house carrying grocery items. When he reached near the house of Chaitibai on the main road NH 63, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of motor cycle CG 17 KK 2665, while driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently, hit Fagnu Poyam from behind due to which Fagnu Poyam received grievous injuries and died on spot. A report of the accident was lodged in Police Station-Kodenar, based on which crime No. 29/2018 was registered for alleged offence under Section 304A of the IPC.

3. Appellants, who are widow and the children of deceased Fagnu Poyam, filed an application under Section 166 , 140 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 17,30,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 47 years of age, was an able bodied person. At the time of the accident deceased was doing the work of labourer and was earning ₹

7,500/- per month to support himself and his family.

4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending motorcycle submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that, on the date of the accident, deceased himself collided with the motor cycle, non-applicant No. 1/ driver was not driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently, he was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending motorcycle. The offending motorcycle was insured with non-applicant No. 3- insurance company, hence the liability, if any, to satisfy the amount of compensation would be upon non-applicant No.3- insurance company.

5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company also filed its reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application. It was further pleaded that on the date of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 did not have a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of the insurance policy.

6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Fagnu Poyam died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending motorcycle by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 8,01,250/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application.

7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims T