1 MAC No. 1471 of 2022 2025:CGHC:37295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1471 of 2022 1. Smt. Neelam Gupta W/o Late Satyendra Gupta, aged about 30 years; 2. Minor Aakriti Kumari Gupta D/o Late Satyendra Gupta, aged about 11 years; 3. Minor Aayuraj Gupta S/o Late Satyendra Gupta, aged about 8 years Appellant No.2 & 3 being minor on behalf of through their legal guardian mother Smt. Neelam Gupta Appellant No.1; 4. Raghunath Prasad Gupta S/o Late Bholanath Gupta, aged about 68 years; 5. Smt. Shardadevi Gupta W/o Raghunath Prasad Gupta, aged about 65 years All R/o Ward No. 13, Near Shiram Pathshala, Pityajhar Road, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.................(Applicants/claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Mohd. Shahid S/o Mohd. Wahid, aged about 28 years R/o Ward No. 05, Sanjay Nagar, Mahasamund, Tahsil & District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.............(Non- ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.08.05 17:59:03 +0530 2 MAC No. 1471 of 2022 Applicant No.01)..................(Driver of Vehicle Honda Amaze Bearing Registration No. CG/04/KV/8697) 2. Ramchatur Mandal S/o Late Makhan Mandal, aged about 60 years R/o Through National Corpo. Park, G.E. Road Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh............. (Non-Applicant No.02)..................(Registered Owner Honda Amaze Bearing Registration No. CG/04/KV/8697) 3. The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, LIC Building, Commercial Campus, 1st floor in front of Shyam Square, Pandri, Raipur District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh..............(Non Applicant No.3)............... (Insurer of Vehicle Honda Amaze Bearing Registration No. CG/04/KV/8697) ... Respondents For Appellants :- Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 30.07 .2025 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) against the impugned award dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, 3 MAC No. 1471 of 2022 Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. H–62/2020, by which the appellants have been awarded compensation of 30,65,000/-. ₹ 2. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record has awarded compensation to the dependents of deceased Satyendra Gupta, who was aged about 38 years at the time of incident, working as Supervisor, in Upasana Ply and Door Company as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 1. Monthly Income ₹ 15000/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. 6,000/- ; total ₹ income = 15,000 + 6,000 = ₹ ₹ 21,000/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ = 5,250/- ₹ ₹ 21,000 – 5,250 = 15,750- ₹ (total income) 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = 28,35,000/- (yearly ₹ income) (15,750 X 12 X 15) 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹. 40,000 x 5 = 2,00,000/- ₹ Total ₹. 30,65,000/- 4 MAC No. 1471 of 2022 3. Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 4. Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel for respondent No.3, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and submit that the learned counsel for the appellant could not find out any infirmity in the order impugned, therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; the salary as stated by the claimants/appellants herein has been accepted by the Claims Tribunal and further considering the fact that learned counsel for 5 MAC No. 1471 of 2022 the appellants has failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit