1 2025:CGHC:60620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1282 of 2022 Nakul Ram S/o Durjan Sao Aged About 47 Years Through Next Friend Pankaj Kumar S/o Nakul Dewangan, Aged About 24 Years, Both R/o - Ward No.-01, Maanki (K), P.S. - Arjunda, District - Balod (C.G.) ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - Bhupendra Kumar Uikey S/o Deepak Uikey Aged About 21 Years R/o Haldi, P.S. And Tahsil Gunderdehi, District - Balod, Present Address Ward No.-14, Kanhar Gaon, District - Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Maheshwar Thakur S/o Dhunauri Thakur R/o - Haldi, P.S. And Tahsil - Gunderdehi, District - Balod (C.G.) 3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through - Claim Manager, Office 2nd Floor, Shiv Arpan Complex, 18/14, South Gangotri Supela Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.12.12 17:24:02 +0530 2 For Appellant :Mr. P.R. Patankar assisted by Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocates For Respondents No. 3 :Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 12.12.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the impugned award dated 29/07/2022 passed by learned VIIth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 191/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 7,84,699/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant for the injuries suffered by him. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that since the appellant was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident, the Claims Tribunal ought to have granted 25% future prospect and as such, the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 9,464/- which is in accordance with the minimum wage notification, however, looking to the fact that appellant was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident, the claims Tribunal ought to have granted 25% future prospect. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is computing the compensation as below :- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income Rs. 9,464/- x 12 = Rs. 1,13,568/- Rs. 9,464/- x 12 = Rs. 1,13,568/- Future Prospect NIL (+) 25% = Rs. 1,41,960/- Multiplier (x) 13 = Rs. 14,76,384/- (x) 13 = Rs. 18,45,480/- Disability 15% = Rs. 2,21,458/-15% = Rs. 2,76,822/- Physical and mental agony Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Special Diet Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Transportation Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Attendant Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Medical Bills Rs. 5,30,242/- Rs. 5,30,242/- Total Rs. 7,84,699/- Rs. 8,77,064/- 4 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 7,84,699/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 8,77,064/-. Hence, the appellant/claimants is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 92,365/-. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 19/02/2021 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet