(MAC No.1010/2020) CGHC010169552020 2026:CGHC:32961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1010 of 2020 {Arising out of award dated 7-2-2020 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.219/2016} National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Shamima Khatun (Bibi), W/o Late Ekrar Khan, Age about 28 years 2. Shohana Khatun, D/o Late Ekrar Khan, Age about 5 years 3. Kameel Raja, S/o Late Ekrar Khan, Age about 1 year 4. Deleted (Kudush Khan) as per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 16-9-2025 5. Bibi Amna, W/o Kudush Khan, Age about 55 years (For and on behalf of minor respondent No.2 and 3 guardian mother respondent No.1) All resident – Hemunagar, Thana Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 6. Chndrashekhar Kumar Singh, S/o Bhragunath Singh, Resident 60 Babhdi, Thana Kutumba, Aurangabad (Bihar) (Owner of vehicle Bus No.BR-02/T-7211) (Owner of Vehicle) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Shashank Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 & 5 : Ms. Sonali Kesharwani, Advocate on behalf of Mrs. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.07.31 16:52:06 +0530 (MAC No.1010/2020) Judgment on Board 30/07/2026 1. The appellant herein/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 7-2-2020 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.219/2016, by which a compensation of ₹ 46,60,000/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 herein by fastening liability upon the appellant herein/Insurance Company. 2. Mr. Shashank Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would submit that 50% future prospects has been granted, whereas it ought to have been 40%, as the deceased was not holding the permanent job in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others1 (paragraph 59), therefore, it be deducted accordingly. He would further submit that income of the deceased has wrongly been taken by the Claims Tribunal as ₹ 20,000/- per month, whereas it should be less than ₹ 20,000/- per month. 3. Ms. Sonali Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 & 5 herein, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 (MAC No.1010/2020) 5. Since the deceased was working as Argon Welder and he was not an employee holding a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment as held by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), deduction of ₹ 1,46,000/- from the amount of compensation would be appropriate and thus, the claimants would now be entitled for an amount of ₹ 45,14,000/-. 6. So far as the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal to be ₹ 20,000/- is concerned, on the basis of documents available on record i.e. Exs.P-6 to P-37, the Claims Tribunal has rightly reached to the conclusion that monthly income of the deceased was ₹ 20,000/-. The finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal regarding monthly income of the deceased is the correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and I hereby affirm the said finding. 7. Accordingly, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was working as Argon Welder, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), this Court is computing the compensation as below:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 20,000/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 20,000 x 12 = ₹ 2,40,000/-. ₹ 20,000/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 20,000 x 12 = ₹ 2,40,000/-. 2. Future Prospect (+) 50% i.e. ₹ 1,20,000; total yearly income = ₹ 2,40,000 + 1,20,000 = ₹ 3,60,000/-. (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 96,000; total yearly income = ₹ 2,40,000 + 96,000 = ₹ 3,36,000/-. (MAC No.1010/2020) 3. Deduction (-) ¼ = ₹ 90,000/- ₹ 3,60,000 – 90,000 = ₹ 2,70,000/- (-) ¼ = ₹ 84,000/- ₹ 3,36,000 – 84,000 = ₹ 2,52,000/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = ₹ 45,90,000/- (x) 17 = ₹ 42,84,000/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 40,000/- x 5 = ₹ 2,00,000/- Total ₹ 46,60,000/- ₹ 45,14,000/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 46,60,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to ₹ 45,14,000/-. Hence, after reducing the difference amount of ₹ 1,46,000/- (46,60,000 – 45,14,000), the claimants are now held entitled for a reduced compensation of ₹ 45,14,000/-. The concerned party as directed by the Claims Tribunal is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as calculated by this Court i.e. ₹ 45,14,000/- within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The reduced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 8-4-2016 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. The appeal stands partly allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma