Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU D 20a 2te 6: .04.30 16:13:46 +0530

Order on Board

(29.04.2026)

1 This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award dated 25.04.2016 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewara (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 409/2014 (Lacche Muchaki & Anr. vs. Nintu Kumar vishwas & Ors.) (herein after referred to as 'award in question') whereby a compensation of Rs.3,10,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss.

2 Brief facts of the case were that on the night of 1.01.2012, Baman (deceased) was lying in the verandah of the Aftab Tyre Works shop, waiting for a bus to Kirandul. At that time, the truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JA-2569 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle) owned by Susen Rai (Respondent No. 4) and insured by Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (the Appellant), was being driven by its driver, Nintu Kumar Biswas (Respondent No. 3), in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, the rear wheel of the offending vehicle ran over Baman's head, resulting in his death on the spot.

3 Baman was an unmarried young man aged 25 years who worked as a labourer. His parents had already died. Subsequently, his elder brothers, Lachha Muchaki (Respondent No. 1) and Nand Kishore Muchaki (Respondent No. 2) filed a claim for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned award, wherein the deceased Baman's age was determined to be 25 years, and his monthly income was assessed at ₹ 3,000/-. Given his status as an unmarried individual, a deduction of 50% was applied towards his personal expenses; thereafter, by applying a multiplier of 17, a sum of ₹ 3,06,000/- was calculated as compensation. Additionally, ₹ 2,000 was awarded for funeral expenses and ₹ 2,000 under the head of loss of estate, resulting in a total award of ₹ 3,10,500/- passed in favour of the claimants (Respondents No. 1 and 2) and against the driver, registered owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle, an award which has been challenged in the present appeal.

4 The learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company argues that the claimants, Lachha Muchaki (Respondent No. 1) and Nand Kishore Muchaki (Respondent No. 2) are the elder brothers of the deceased, Baman. The deceased Baman himself was unmarried, whereas both claimants are not only married but were also not dependent upon the deceased. Lachha Muchaki is engaged in agricultural work, while Nand Kishore Muchaki holds the post of Assistant Constable in the Chhattisgarh Special Armed Force. Since the claimants do not fall within the category of dependents, the award passed by the Tribunal in their favour is erroneous in the eyes of the law and excessive. Therefore, the passed award ought to be set aside by allowing the present appeal.

5 No one appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 2 during final hearing of this case.

6 Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4, who are, respectively, the driver and the registered owner of the offending vehicle have denied their liability, asserting that the vehicle was insured.

7 Heard learned counsel appearing for parties, and the record was meticulously perused.

8 In this case, claimants Lacchha Muchaki and Masaram Sori have been examined on behalf of the claimants. As a claimant and the elder brother of the deceased, Lacchha Muchaki has admitted that the deceased was younger than him; while he himself engages in agricultural work, Nand Kishore Muchaki serves as an Assistant Constable in the Chhattisgarh Special Armed Force. The deceased (Baman) used to work for a contractor and would dine with him. The evidence clearly establishes that the deceased was unmarried, whereas the claimants are married and possess independent sources of income; consequently, it can