1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 693 of 2021 1 - Smt. Mariyam Bisai / Kashyap W/o Late Gurunath Bisai/kashyap Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kikirpal Khaspara, Tehsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Riya Kashyap D/o Gurunath Kashyap Aged About 12 Years (Through Her Natural Guardian Appellant-1), R/o Village Kikirpal Khaspara, Tehsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ogar Bhaskar S/o Sonu Bhaskar Aged About 22 Years R/o Jampara, Village Gamawada, P. S. Bhansi, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Anju Singh Sengar W/o Ashok Singh Sengar R/o New Market Bacheli, Post Office Bacheli District Dantewada Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, First Floor Shanti Chhavi Tower Sirasar Square Powerhouse Road Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Bhatia, Advocate holding brief of Shri HAPS Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate alongwith Ms. Devanshi Chakrabarty, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None though served. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board NIRMALA RAO NIRMALA RAO 2 14.1.2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, District Dantewada in Claim Case No. 11/2019 dated 14.9.2021 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.10,05,000/- with interest @ 6% on account of death of Prem Kumar Bisai. 2) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the motorcycle of deceased Prem Kumar Bisai was dashed by a Truck bearing registration No.C.G. 18 F 0781 on 1.2.2019. She would submit that in the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to death. She would submit that the mother and minor sister of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 23 years and earning Rs.7,500/- per month. She would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,925/- per month, which is on the lower side. She would contend that the learned Tribunal has not granted proper compensation on conventional heads. She would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the 3 appellants. He would contend that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading cogent evidence. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5) Admittedly, in claim case, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was a labourer earning Rs.7,500/- per month but they failed to lead evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.5,925/- per month, which is at lower side looking to the minimum wages matrix. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and this figure should have been taken into consideration while computing the compensation. 6) The learned Tribunal deducted ½ towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as the deceased was a bachelor. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 looking to the age of the deceased as 22 years, granted 40% compensation for loss of future prospects and awarded proper compensation for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to deduction, multiplier and grant of compensation on conventional heads do 4 not require any interference. Though the claimants pleaded the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month but the Courts and the Tribunal should grant just and proper compensation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others1 that “In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is it should be "just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This is clear from Sections 166(1) & (4), 158(6) and 168.” 7) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is re- computing the compensation as below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Yearly Income Rs. 71,100/- (@Rs.5,925/-pm) Rs. 97,680/- (@Rs. 8,140 pm) 2. Annual Income adding Future Prospect Rs. (71,100 + 28,440 = 99,540/-) (@ 40%) Rs. (97,680 + 39,072 = 1,36,752/- (@ 40%) 3. Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 49,770/- (@1/2) Rs. 68,376/- (@1/2) 4. Annual Income after applying Multiplier Rs. 8,95,860/- Rs. 12,30,768/- 1. 2003 (2) SCC 274 5 (@18) (@18) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000 x 2 = 80,000/- Rs. 40,000 x 2 = 80,000/- TOTAL Rs. 10,05,000/- Rs. 13,40,768/- 8) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.10,05,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,40,768/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,35,768/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi