1 MAC No. 999 of 2022 2025:CGHC:61091 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 999 of 2022 1.Sahaduram S/o Late Botkuram @ Bhotkuram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Bhandardigi, P.S. And Tahsil Durugkondal, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1.Mahruram Narethi S/o Deendayal Narethi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Picchekatta, Tah. Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh (Driver And Owner Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 19 B.J.0689). 2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Branch Office, Besides L.I.C. Office, Near Railway Station Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 19 B.J. 0689). ... Respondents For Appellant :-Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.1:-Mr. Sumit Shrivsatava, Advocate. For Respondent No.2:-Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 15.12.2025 1.This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.12.16 17:33:45 +0530 2 MAC No. 999 of 2022 seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 25/2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimant’s application and awarded a sum of 35,000/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Lakhmibair Nareti. 2.Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the claimant, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present cases and therefore, just and proper amount be awarded suitably. 3.Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.1, would submit that the owner and driver are not liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. 4.Mr. H.s. Patel, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.2, would submit 3 MAC No. 999 of 2022 oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the claimants and submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 5.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records meticulously. 6.Admittedly, deceased Lakhmibai Nareti, was aged about 70 years at the time of accident and as per the claimant, she used to earn 200/- per ₹ day and 6,000/- per month. As such, in light ₹ of the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation is liable to be enhanced. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income 6 ₹ ,000 x 12 = 72,000/- ₹ 2. Deduction (-) 1/3 = 24,000/- ₹ ₹72,000-24,000= 48,000/- ₹ 3. Multiplier (x) 5= 2,40,000/- ₹ 4 MAC No. 999 of 2022 4. Consortium 40,000/- ₹ Total ₹2,80,000/ - 7.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹2,80,000/- is awarded by this Court and the appellant is held to be entitled to an amount of ₹2,80,000/-, in addition to 35,000/- ₹ which has already been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as awarded by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal 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 Ankit