1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2447 of 2024 Chola M.S. Insurance Company Ltd. (Actual Name Cholamandam Ms General Insurance Company Limited), 2nd Floor, Simran Towers, Opp. LIC Building, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Vehicle Pickup No. CG-23-J-5291 ) ... Appellant versus 1. Bhisham Allies Bhishan Sahu S/o Dular Sahu aged about 50 years Village Nimora, Post Sondara, Tahsil And Thana Dharsiwa, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Rukmani Bai Sahu W/o Bhisham Allies Bhisan Sahu aged about 43 years Village Bhimora, Post Sondara, Tahsil And Thana Dharsiwa, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Vishwanath Sahu S/o Bhisham Allies Bhishan Sahu aged about 20 years Village Bhimora, Post Sondara, Tahsil And Thana Dharsiwa, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Minor Jyotish Sahu Through Guardian Father Bhisham Allies Bhishan Sahu Aged About 16 years Village Bhimora, Post Sondara, Tahsil and Thana Dharsiwa, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 5. Pravin Kumar Rathore S/o H.K. Rathore aged about 52 years R/o Bindranawagarh, Thana Mainpur, Tahsil And District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh (Driver of Vehicle Pickup No. CG-23-J-5291 6. Kuldip Kumar Khare (Died and Delete) As per Honble Court Order Dated 16/09/2025 ... Respondents For appellant : Shri Ashish Pandey on behalf of Shri Shokie Yadav, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 4 : Shri A.L. Singroul, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) 2 Order on Board dated 23/03/2026 This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 1.3.2024 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the “Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 29/2022 awarding compensation of Rs. 18,39,040/- in favour of the claimants. Respondents/claimants have also filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for enhancement of compensation. 2. Facts: On 18.01.2022 deceased Gopi Sahu with his friend as going on motorcycle from Gariyaband to Raipur and when he reached near Baruka Nala, the offending vehicle driven by respondent No.5 rashly and negligently came there and dashed his motorcycle. He suffered injuries and succumbed to the same during treatment in Government Hospital Gariyaband. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was a bachelor and the parents and sister were dependent on him. However, learned Tribunal deducted 1/4th towards his personal and living expenses which in fact should have been ½. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the income taken by the Tribunal is Rs. 7,800/- whereas looking to fact that the deceased was working in a Private Company and the minimum wages prevailing then, it should have been taken at Rs. 15,000/- 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court proceeds to re-assesses the compensation. 5. The income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 10,000/- per month and the annual at Rs. 1,20,000/- which after adding 40% towards future prospects rises to Rs. 1,68,000/-. Since the deceased was bachelor, half thereof is taken towards his 3 personal and living expenses, and another half which comes to Rs. 84,000/- he must have been spending on the claimants. Applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of income thus comes up to Rs. 15,12,000/-. Further, adding Rs. 16,500/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses ( 16,500 x 2 = 33,000) and then Rs. 1,20,000/- as consortium to mother, father and sister (Rs. 40,000 x 3) the total compensation rises up to Rs. 16,65,000/-. However, in this case, the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 18,39,040/- and therefore the excess amount comes to Rs. 1,74,040/- for which the claimants are not entitled. Thus the actual compensation for which the claimants are entitled is thus worked out at Rs. 16,65,000/-. 6. Rest portion of the award shall remain as it is. With the aforesaid arithmetical exercise, the appeal and also the cross objection stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2026.04.02 17:54:12 +0530