-1- 2025:CGHC:15644 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 265 of 2022 1 - Ansatu Baghel S/o Bongaram Baghel Aged About 40 Years R/o At Dokripara, Maandlapal, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mandani Baghel W/o Ansatu Baghel Aged About 38 Years R/o At Dokripara, Maandlapal, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chandan Vishwas S/o Keshav Vishwas Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Usri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2 - Thiluram Mourya S/o Peelaram Mourya R/o Village Usri, Badepara, P.S. Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3 - Tata A.I.G. Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 2nd Floor, Building, No. 9/1, Behind Khandelwal Motors, M.G. Road, Adjoining Treasure Island Mall, Indore, (M.P.) (Insurer). --- Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For respondent No.3/Insurance Company : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate along with Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate For other respondents : None appears Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.04.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellants/Claimants have filed this appeal according to the provisions REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bastar, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.141/2021 dated 26.11.2021. 3) The facts of the present case are that on 24.10.2020 at about 4:00 O’clock when the deceased Dilip Baghel was returning home on his motorcycle, the offending motorbike bearing registration No.C.G.-17/KT/5726 dashed him from the backside. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. 4) Thereafter, an FIR was lodged and Crime No.27/2020 was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. 5) The learned Tribunal recorded findings that the deceased died on account of the accident on 04.11.2020. It is also held that there was no breach of the Insurance Policy and thus, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,68,905/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application till its realization. 6) Mr. Tulsyan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that the age of the deceased on the date of the accident was 19 years and to prove the age of the deceased, the mark-sheet of Class-5 was produced before the learned Tribunal as Ex.A/12. He would contend that the claimants adduced oral evidence and proved Ex. A/12 and the age of the deceased. He would further contend that the deceased was a labourer and he was earning Rs.400-500 per day but the learned Tribunal held his age 15 years -3- on the basis of the postmortem report and considered the notional income of Rs.60,000/- per annum. He would pray to revisit the compensation. 7) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tulsyan. He would submit that the Claimants could not adduce clinching evidence to prove the age of the deceased. He would further submit that though the mark-sheet of Class-5th was produced before the learned Tribunal but the same was not proved by examining its author or Head Master of the school. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence with regard to the income, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.60,000/- per annum. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 8) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9) It is a case where the deceased Dilip Baghel sustained injuries in an accident on 24.10.2020 at about 4:00 O’clock when his motorbike bearing registration No. C.G.-17/KT/5322 was dashed by another motorbike bearing registration No. C.G.-17/KT/5726. The offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The deceased was taken to a hospital and during the course of treatment, he died on 04.11.2020. An FIR was lodged and Crime No.27/2020 was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. The parties led evidence. The learned Tribunal recorded findings that the deceased died on -4- account of the accident on 04.11.2020. It is also held by the learned Tribunal that there was no breach of the Insurance Policy and thus, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,68,905/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application till its realization. 10)A perusal of the award impugned would show that the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 15 years as mentioned in the postmortem report but at the same time, Ex.A/12, the mark-sheet of Class- 5th has not been considered at all by the learned Tribunal. When there is controverted documentary evidence with regard to the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered such evidence. The Tribunal has not assigned any sufficient reason to disbelieve the mark-sheet of Class-5th and thus, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to the age of the deceased require reconsideration. 11)The age of the deceased according to the mark-sheet of Class-5th was 19 years, 3 months and 28 days on the date of the accident. 12)Learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.60,000/- per annum looking to his age as 15 years. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal also require reconsideration because as per the mark sheet, the age of the deceased was more than 19 years on the date of the accident, he was working as a labourer as per the Claimants’ evidence and was earning Rs.400/--500/- per day but there is no documentary evidence with regard to the income. 13)The minimum wage payable in the year 2020 in the State of Chhattisgarh -5- was Rs.9480/- per month. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income according to the prevailing minimum wages payable in the State of Chhattisgarh. 14)Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the compensation awarded to the claimants is revisited as under:- 1. Income (Minimum wages) Rs.9,480/- x 12 = 1,13,760/- p.a. 2. Multiplier of 18 Rs.1,13,760 x 18 =Rs.20,47,680/- 3. For Future Prospects 40% (Rs.20,47,680/- + Rs.8,19,072/-= Rs.28,66,752/- 4. For Personal Expenses ½ (Rs.28,66,752/- - Rs.14,33,376/-) = Rs.14,33,376/- 5. For Loss of Income Rs. 14,33,376/- 6. For Medical Expenses Rs.08,905/- Other Heads : Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate Loss of Consortium (Total) Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- Rs.88,000/- RS.15,63,281/-) Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs.05,68,905/- Liable to be enhanced Rs.09,94,376/- In light of the above calculation, the amount of compensation is enhanced by Rs.09,94,376/-. The Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the enhanced compensation to the claimants. The rate of interest would be the same as awarded by the learned Tribunal i.e. @ 9% per annum from the date of the application till the date of its realization. The balance amount/ enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy -6- of this order. The rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. 15) In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha