1 2026:CGHC:19603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 495 of 2024 1 - Onkareshwari W/o Late Vedprakash Aged About 58 Years R/o Vill. Kharsinya, P.S. And Tah. Kharsinya, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jyoti Prakash D/o Late Vedprakash Aged About 29 Years R/o Vill. Kharsinya, P.S. And Tah. Kharsinya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Som Prakash S/o Late Vedprakash Aged About 27 Years R/o Vill. Kharsinya, P.S. And Tah. Kharsinya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Raviraj Singh S/o Jayprakash Singh Aged About 75 Years R/o Vill. Maraila, Tah. Sirmar, Distt. Rinva, At Present Link Road, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhotelal S/o Shivram Aged About 60 Years R/o Vill. Chhapar Khiri Korav Prayagraj (U.P.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle). 3 - New India Insurance Company Limited No. 460500031210100008890 Bilaspur Rama Trade Centre 2nd Floor U.T.I. Building Oparvi Plaza Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Res. No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 28.04.2026. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned 1st AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.05 11:12:24 +0530 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shakti, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 47 of 2022. 2. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,24,400/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Ved Prakash an accident that took place on 27.01.2022 by offending vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No. CG11AY/6114, the driver of the offending vehicle is respondent No. 1 it is owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the Insurance Company/respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/ Ved Prakash sustained severe injuries, due to which he died. 3. As per the pleadings, at the time of accident, the deceased/ Ved Prakash was aged about 58 years and he was a security guard at Murli Seth Gudakhu Factory, Kharsia, (C.G.) and was earning Rs. 14,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2/Driver, owner and Respondent No.3/Insurance company have filed their written statement, in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application. The Insurance Company further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed four issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased/ Ved Prakash was aged about 58 years and was a security guard and was earning Rs. 14,000/- per months whereas the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 7,000/-. Alternatively, he submits that looking to the age, two minor children, date of accident, atleast minimum wages should 3 have been taken for assessment of compensation and amount on other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, suitable enhancement may be made by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Supports the award and submits that in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to income of the deceased, findings of the learned Tribunal is justified and just compensation has been awarded. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 9. As per pleadings, the deceased at the time of accident was a security guard but no documentary evidence has been brought on record with regard to income of the deceased, the appellant No. 1 is a widow lady and alongwith two children, they were dependent upon the income of the deceased, thus, taking into consideration the number of dependents; age of the deceased; date of accident; nature of job & minimum wages prevailing at that time this Court is of the view that Rs. 10,000/- can be safely taken as income of the deceased. 10. In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S.N Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the deceased 10,000/- 2. Future Prospects @ 10% 1000/- 3. Total Income 11,000/- 4. Total Yearly Income 11000X12= 1,32,000/- 5. Personal expenditure (1/3) 1,32,000/3= 44,000/- 6. Net Income 1,32,000- 44,000= 88,000/- 7. Multiplier of 9 applied to 88,000X9= 7,92,000/- 4 assess total loss of dependency 8. Funeral Expenses 16,500/- 9. Loss of estate 16,500/- Spousal Consortium 44,000/- 10. Filial and Parental Consortium 80,000/- Total compensation 09,49,000/- 11. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 6,24,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 09,49,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,24,400/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,24,600/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 01.03.2024. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from today, on such deposit being made, one F.D. of Rs. 2 lacs for a period of one year shall be made in the name of appellant No. 1/ Onkareshwari and Rs. 50 thousand each shall be disbursed to appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 3 and remaining amount shall be disbursed to the appellant No. 1. 13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami