-1- 2025:CGHC:53082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 974 of 2024 1. Preeti Yadav W/o Late Shri Neraj Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o 182/2, Village Lachcchanpur, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Bajrangpara, Near Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2. Baby Yadav D/o Late Neraj Yadav Aged About 13 Years Minors And Represented Through Mother Preeti Yadav, R/o 182/2, Village Lachcchanpur, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Bajrangpara, Near Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Yogendra Raj Yadav S/o Late Neraj Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav Aged About 8 Years Minors And Represented Through Mother Preeti Yadav, R/o 182/2, Village Lachcchanpur, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Bajrangpara, Near Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Shivam Yadav S/o Late Neraj Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav Aged About 4 Years Minors And Represented Through Mother Preeti Yadav, R/o 182/2, Village Lachcchanpur, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Bajrangpara, Near Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Meghna Yadav D/o Late Neraj Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav Aged About 8 Years Minors And Represented Through Mother Preeti Yadav, R/o 182/2, Village Lachcchanpur, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Bajrangpara, Near Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6. Lakshmeen Yadav W/o Late Rajendra Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o 182/2, Village Lachcchanpur, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Bajrangpara, Near Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Surjit Kumar S/o Shiv Prasad Aged About 33 Years R/o Sakin Village Kachaura, P.S. Urga, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Basin, Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. -12-Ar-8955) 2. M/s Anand Transport Company Proprietor Rajesh Kumar Minocha R/o Hig 28, Mp Nagar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg-12-Ar-8955) SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.31 10:25:12 +0530 -2- 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Rama Trade Centre, Second Floor, Near Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle C.G. -12-Ar-8955) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For Other Respondents : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.10.2025 1) The appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under the provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award passed by the VIIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.883/2023 dated 15.02.2024 wherein and whereby, an award of Rs. 23,01,936/- with interest @ 9 % per annum has been passed against the insurance company. 2) The facts of the present case are that on 16.06.2023, the deceased Neeraj Yadav and his friend Bhuneshwar Singh after loading pipe in the vehicle Mazda bearing registration No. C.G.11-DB-1778 proceeded towards Pendra and when they reached K.K. Dhaba situated near the house of Vikas Singh, the driver of the offending truck bearing registration No. C.G.-12-AR-8955 driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the vehicle Mazda. The Mazda vehicle caught fire, which resulted in the death of Bhuneshwar Singh and Neeraj Yadav. 3) The appellant No. 1 is widow, appellants No. 2 to 5 are children and appellant No. 6 is mother of the deceased Neeraj Yadav. They filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 68,14,000/- inter alia on the ground that at the time of the death, the age of the deceased was 33 years. It is pleaded -3- that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- working as a Helper. 4) The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply. They stated that the deceased himself was negligent. It is pleaded that the claimants have exaggerated their claim. The Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the contents of the application. 5) Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of evidence held that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The learned Tribunal fastened the liability with the Insurance Company to make payment of compensation of Rs. 23,01,936/- to the appellants/claimants with interest @ 9% per annum. 6) Ms. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the deceased was a Helper and he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income to the tune of Rs.9,960/- which is at a lower side. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal failed to add 10% to the amount awarded for the loss of estate. She would pray for the enhancement of compensation. 7) On the other hand, Mr. Nande, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Mishra. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would further submit that the claimants could not prove the monthly income of the deceased by leading clinching evidence. He would contend that the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 9,960/- according to the Minimum Wages payable to the unskilled labourers in the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2023. He would further contend that the appellants are not entitled to an additional sum of 10% on conventional heads. He would contend that the present appeal -4- deserves to be dismissed. 8) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 9) A perusal of the record would show that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by examining his employer or any other witness. 10) It is not in dispute that the deceased was a Helper but the claimants could not prove that he was employed somewhere and was earning a fixed income. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased according to the Minimum Wages payable to the unskilled labourers in the year 2023 and I do not find any illegality or error of law in such assessment. 11) With regard to the 10% additional sum on conventional heads, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, held as under:- “61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed -5- salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 12) The claimants would not be entitled to receive an additional sum of Rs. 10% on figures of the conventional head as three years have not elapsed from the date of the accident i.e. 16.6.2023. 13) As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant