1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 715 of 2023 1 - Smt. Bindiya Bai W/o Late Chaitram Suryavanshi Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Manjhwapara, Bharari, Post Singhri, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2 - Arya Suryavanshi D/o Late Chaitram Suryavanshi Aged About 5 Years Appellant No. 2 Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Bindiya Bai R/o Village Manjhwapara, Bharari, Post Singhri, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ... Appellants versus 1 - Haridayal Rai S/o Ramdas Rai Aged About 58 Years R/o Near Pump House Jhopadi Para, Korba, Police Station City Kotwali, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Owner And Driver Of Truck No. C G-12-C-3699) 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Rama Trade Centre, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Near Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurance Compay Of Truck No. C G-12-C-3699) 3 - Tarabai W/o Late Chhotelal Suryavanshi Aged About 55 SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.06.27 16:02:33 +0530 2 Years R/o Village Manjhwapara, Bharari, Post Singhri, Police Station Koni, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Santoshibai D/o Late Chhotelal Suryavanshi Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Manjhwapara, Bharari, Post Singhri, Police Station Koni, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-titles are taken from CIS) For Appellants : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (25.06.2026) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/claimants for enhancement against the award dated 25.01.2023 passed by 08th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 401/2020, whereby compensation of Rs.20,87,812/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellants has been awarded. 2. The gist of the claim before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 14.07.2020, deceased Chetram Suryavanshi was returning home on his motor cycle bearing Registration No. CG-10/AT-2864 after completing carpenter work at Mittal Furniture, Transport Nagar, along with his companion Abhishek Suryavanshi. When he reached the main road in front of the factory, the driver of Truck bearing Registration No. CG-12-C-3699, drove the vehicle rashly, negligently and 3 at a very high speed and hit the motor cycle, due to which Chetram Suryavanshi sustained grievous injuries on head, nose, face, chest and other vital parts and died on the spot. On the report of the incident being lodged at Police Station Sirgitti, Dist. Bilaspur, Crime was registered. 3. It it claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Chetram Suryavanshi was aged about 28 years and was married. He was working as a carpenter and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. Due to the untimely death of Chetram, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the wife, minor daughter, mother and sister of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants had preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 30,86,000/- u/s 166 of MV Act. 4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 8,860/- per month. Added 40% future prospects. Considered the fact that the claimants are the wife, minor daughter, mother and sister of the deceased, 1/4th of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. Considered the age of the deceased as 28 years, multiplier of 17 was applied. Further, a total amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- has been awarded under other heads. Accordingly, the total compensation of Rs. 20,87,812 has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum against respondent/insurance company, from the date of application. Hence, the appeal is for enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. Learned 4 counsel for appellants urged that the Tribunal has assessed lesser income of the deceased which needs to be enhanced to Rs. 9,120/- per month as per minimum wages notification prevailing at the time of accident. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and compensation needs to be enhanced suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly awarded the compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10.As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month from the work of Carpenter, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, 5 keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident 14.07.2020, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. specially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 9,120/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident. The annual income comes to Rs. 1,09,440/-. As per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects would be 40% as held by the Tribunal. Hence, after adding 40% towards future prospect i.e. Rs. 43,776/-, the yearly income comes to Rs. 1,53,216/-. 11. The deceased was married and the claimants are the wife, minor daughter, mother and sister (total 4 dependents), so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th as rightly held by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 38,304/-. After deduction of the same, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,14,912/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier would be 17. Hence, after applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 19,53,504/-. In addition, Rs. 1,90,000/- has been awarded under other conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc., which is just and proper. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 21,43,504/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- 6 Heads Calculation Compensation towards dependency Rs. 19,53,504/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Towards loss of love and affection to four claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- each Rs.1,60,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 21,43,504/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 21,43,504/-. After deducting Rs. 20,87,812/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 55,692/- (2143504- 2087812). 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.55,692/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 14. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham