1 CGHC010294942024 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1743 of 2024 1 - Manoj Kumar Soni S/o. Pawan Kumar Soni Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village - Sirry Kala, Thana- Fingeshwar, District - Gariyabandh (C.G.) 2 - Shanti Bai W/o. Manoj Kumar Soni Aged About 36 Years R/o. Village - Sirry Kala, Thana- Fingeshwar, District - Gariyabandh (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Ganesh Sahu S/o. Shivraj Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o. Village - Koylari, Thana - Sahsapur Lohara, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Cg-09-Je-3526) 2 - Jageshwar Dadsena S/o. Diwakar Lal Dadsena, R/o. Ward No. 8, Lohara Chowk, Thana - Sahsapur, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Cg-09-Je-3526) 3 - The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Address- In Front Of Tahsil Office G.E. Road, Raipur And District - Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Cg-09-Je- 3526) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.08.10 11:53:57 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (06.08.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 18.04.2024, passed in Claim Case No.485/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.6,49,384/- as compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 for death of Roshan Soni aged about 14 years, who died in a road accident which took place on 07.05.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a lesser amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Claims Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,500/- which ought to be 11,390/-. The Claims Tribunal has not added any amount towards future prospects which ought to be 40%. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel versus Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company would submit that the Claims Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards personal and living expenses, which ought to be deducted @ 1/2. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered 3 their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, true it is that the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs.2,500. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment. It is further held that in such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises, relevant para 9 is reproduced herein- below; “9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well- entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non- earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very lease, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors.(2020) 4 SCC 413, and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692.” 4 6. In view of above, the deceased Roshan ought to be considered as skilled person and his monthly income ought to be considered as Rs.11,390/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Furthermore, looking to the age of the deceased, as per the law laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, 40% towards future prospects ought to be added and 1/2 deduction ought to be made for personal and living expenses, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 7. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 2500 x 12 = 30,000/- Rs. 11390 x 12 = 1,36,680/- 2. Future prospect NA (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 54,672) = 1,91,352/- 3. Deduction NA (-) 1/2 (i.e. 95,676) = 95,676/- 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = 4,50,000/- (x) 15 = 14,35,140/- 5 Other conventional Rs. 1,21,000/- Rs. 1,21,000/- (16500+16500+880 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 heads 00) 6 Medical Expenses Rs. 78,384/- Rs. 78,384/- Total Rs. 6,49,384/- Rs.16,34,524/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.6,49,384/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.16,34,524/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.6,49,384/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.9,85,140/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 10.Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. 11. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. 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