1 MAC No. 654 of 2020 & MAC No. 651 of 2020 2026:CGHC:17771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 654 of 2020  Minor Vivek Patel S/o Parikshit Patel, Aged About 10 Years, Through Natural Guardian Father Parikshit Patel S/o Shri Bramhanand Patel, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Kanchanpur Sariya, Tahsil Baramkela, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1. Manoj Singh S/o Shri Shivnath Singh, R/o House No. 301/k, Indira Awas Timarlaga, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Truck No. CG 13 L 6558). 2. Bablu Singh S/o Shri Suresh Singh, R/o Village Abhirampur, Thana Sonhe, District Jamui (Bihar) At Present Residence Of Near Lat Nala Timarlaga, C/o Manoj Singh S/o Shri Shivnath Singh, R/o House No. 301/k, Indira Awas Timarlaga, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Truck No. CG 13 L 6558). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Rahul Complex, 3rd Floor, Above Axis Bank Jagatpur Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Truck No. CG 13 L 6558). --- Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MAC No. 654 of 2020 & MAC No. 651 of 2020 MAC No. 651 of 2020  Minor Vinay Patel S/o Shri Parikshit Patel, Aged About 12 Years, Through Natural Guardian Father Parikshit Patel S/o Shri Bramhanand Patel, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Kanchanpur Sariya, Tahsil Baramkela, Civil & Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus 1. Manoj Singh S/o Shri Shivnath Singh R/o House No. 301/k, Indira Awas Timarlaga, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Truck No. CG 13 L 6558). 2. Bablu Singh S/o Shri Suresh Singh, R/o Village Abhirampur, Thana Sonhe, District Jamui (Bihar) At Present Residence Of Near Lat Nala Timarlaga, C/o Manoj Singh S/o Shri Shivnath Singh R/o House No. 301/k, Indira Awas Timarlaga, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Truck No. CG 13 L 6558). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Rahul Complex, 3rd Floor, Above Axis Bank Jagatpur Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Truck No. CG 13 L 6558). --- Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 :- Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No.3. :- Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 20.04.2026 1. Since the common question of law and facts is involved in the present cases and they have arisen out of common accident, though 3 MAC No. 654 of 2020 & MAC No. 651 of 2020 different claim cases, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appeal MAC No.654 of 2020 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/injured claimant against impugned award dated 30.11.2019, in Claim Cases No. 41/2016, and appeal MAC No.651 of 2020 under Section 173 of the Act of 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/injured claimant against impugned award dated 24.12.2019, in Claim Cases No. 40/2016, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded compensation along with interest. 3. Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants/injured claimants, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present cases. He would also submit that the in MAC No.654 of 2020, Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount under the other heads like pain, special died, transportation etc. which is liable to the enhanced. He would further submit that in MAC No.651 of 2020, the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the injured claimant to the tune of 6,000/- which should be 6,549/- per ₹ 4 MAC No. 654 of 2020 & MAC No. 651 of 2020 month as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would also submit that amount under the other heads like pain, special died, transportation etc. less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be enhanced. Therefore, the appeals filed by the injured claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 4. Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the injured claimants and submit that the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation to the claimants herein. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records precisely. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of injured claimant to be 6,000/- in MAC No.651 of 2020, however, in the ₹ opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the injured should be 6,549/- ₹ (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and 78,588/- ₹ per annum. Furthermore, the Claims Tribunal has awarded less 5 MAC No. 654 of 2020 & MAC No. 651 of 2020 amount under the other heads like pain & suffering, loss of amenities, special died and etc. which is liable to be awarded. As such, the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced. 7. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion claimant will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this Court:- MAC No.654 of 2020 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Treatment Expenses ₹21,615/- 21,615/- ₹ 2. Post Traumatic injury ₹4,00,000/- 4,00,000/- ₹ 3. Pain and suffering 60,000/- ₹ 70,000/- ₹ 4. Loss of amenities 50,000/- ₹ 5. Special diet & Transportation 50,000/- ₹ 6. Loss of income during treatment 10,000/- ₹ 7. Total 4,81,615 = ₹ ₹4,81,700/- (round up 6,01,615/- ₹ MAC No.651 of 2020 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income ₹6,000x12= 72,000/- ₹ ₹6,549x12 = 78,588/- ₹ 2. Future Prospect (+)40% = 28,800/- ₹ 72,000+28,800 = ₹ 1,00,800/- (total ₹ income (+)40% = 31,436/- ₹ ₹78,588+31,436 = 1,10,024/- (total ₹ income 3. Disability 60% 60% of ₹1,00,800 = 60,480/- ₹ 60% of ₹1,10,024 = ₹66,014/- 6 MAC No. 654 of 2020 & MAC No. 651 of 2020 4. Multiplier 15 x ₹60,480 = 9,07,200/- ₹ 15 x ₹66,014 = 9,90,210/- ₹ 5. Treatment Expenses ₹1,81,448/- 1,81,448/- ₹ 6. Artificial Limb ₹45,95,000/- 45,95,000/- ₹ 7. Pain & Suffering 80,000/- (other ₹ heads) 4,00,000/- ₹ 8. Loss of Amenities 2,00,000/- ₹ 9. Special diet & Transportation 1,00,000/- ₹ 10. Loss of Marriage Prospects 2,00,000/- ₹ 11. Loss of Income during treatment 50,000/- ₹ Total ₹57,63,648/- ₹67,16,658/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹4,81,700 /- awarded by the Claims Tribunal in MAC No. 654 of 2020 is enhanced to 6,01,615 ₹ /-. Hence, after deducting the amount of 4,81,700 ₹ /-, the appellant/injured claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of 1,19,915/- ₹ . Further, the amount of compensation of 57,63,648/- ₹ awarded by the Claims Tribunal in MAC No. 651 of 2020 is enhanced to 67,16,658 ₹ /-. Hence, after deducting the amount of 57,63,648/- ₹ , the appellant/injured claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹9,53,010/-. In both the appeals, the concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of 7 MAC No. 654 of 2020 & MAC No. 651 of 2020 copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization, in both the cases. Rest of the conditions of the impugned awards shall remain intact. 9. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit