1 CGHC010264092023 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1385 of 2023 1 - Smt. Pankinbai Mannade W/o Sharda Prasad Mannade Aged About 68 Years Resident of Village Bhoring, Police Station- Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 2 - Bhavesh Mannade S/o Late Dinesh Kumar Mannade Aged About 16 Years Minor, Through Grandmother Smt. Pankinbai Mannade Resident of Village Bhoring, Police Station- Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 3 - Devesh Kumar Mannade S/o Late Dinesh Kumar Mannade Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through Grandmother Smt. Pankinbai Mannade Resident of Village Bhoring, Police Station- Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 4 - Ku. Isha Mannade D/o Late Dinesh Kumar Mannade Aged About 12 Years Minor, Through Grandmother Smt. Pankinbai Mannade Resident of Village Bhoring, Police Station- Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Ajay Sahu S/o Harakram Sahu Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village- Achholi, Police Station- Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of Matador No. C.G.-06-GG-6679). 2 - Smt. Savita Yadav W/o Late Bholaram Yadav Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Kosanagar, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) (Owner Of Matador No. C.G.-06-GG-6679). 3 - The Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Krishna Complex, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Matador No. C.G.-06-GG-6679) ... Respondent(s) For the appellants : Mr. Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate For respondent no.3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate 27/07/2026 ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.07.29 11:16:02 +0530 2 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 26.11.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Mahasamund in Claim Case No.90/2017 whereby a total compensation of Rs.17,08,750/- has been awarded for the death of deceased. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Dinesh Kumar Mannade died on spot in a motor accident took place on 26.03.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Appellant no.1 is mother and appellants 2, 3 & 4 are children of deceased. They being legal heirs filed claim application seeking a total compensation of Rs. 25,50,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income taken by the Tribunal and the amounts granted under the conventional heads are on lower side, therefore, just compensation has not been granted. He prays that the award may suitably be enhanced. 4. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.400 to 500/- per day by working as an Advocate’s Clerk. In absence of any clinching and admissible evidence and looking to the nature of job, the learned claims Tribunal took the income of deceased to be Rs.9000/- which cannot be said to be on lower side. 5. The age of deceased was found to be 40 years. Considering the age and number of dependents as also in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 the Tribunal has rightly added 25% future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 15. Thus the total loss of 3 dependency was worked out to Rs. 15,18,750/-. 6. Further more, under other conventional heads i.e., funeral expenses Rs.15000/-; loss of estate Rs.15000/-; loss of consortium to mother and children in all Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs. 40,000 x 4) have been granted. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 17,08,750/- has been awarded for the death of deceased in favour of the appellants with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till its realisation. 7. Since the award passed by the Tribunal is in conformity with the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that just compensation has not been awarded. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal warranting interference in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao