1 2026:CGHC:19732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1457 of 2024 1 - Harilal S/o Sukhdev @ Kashipuri Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Manjhi Tola, Sarbahra Gaurela, Distt. Gaurela-Pendra-Marvahi (C.G.) (Claimant). 2 - Khelkunwar W/o Harilal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Manjhi Tola, Sarbahra Gaurela, Distt. Gaurela-Pendra-Marvahi (C.G.) (Claimant). ... Appellants versus 1 - Rampal Yadav S/o Suresh Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Harri, Thana - Sohagpur, Distt. - Shahdol, (M.P.). (Driver). 2 - Brijesh Kumar Gupta S/o Gulab Gupta R/o Near Lalpur Bus Stand, Thana- Budhar, Distt-Shahdol (M.P.) (Owner). 3 - Branch Manager Chola Mandalam Genaral Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Vyapar Vihar Shop No. G-1/12 Near Zonal Salerio Sho Room, Thana-Civil Line, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer). ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate For Res. No. 3 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, 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 30.01.2024 passed by the learned AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.06 11:13:45 +0530 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 1697 of 2021 2. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 13,00,360/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Ramcharan an accident that took place on 14.12.2020 by offending vehicle (Pickup) bearing Registration No. MP-18GA/4698. The driver of the offending vehicle is respondent No. 1, Owner is respondent No. 2 and insured with the Insurance Company/respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/ Ramcharan sustained severe injuries, due to which he died. 3. As per the pleadings, at the time of accident, the deceased/ Ramcharan was aged about 20 years and he was a Motor Mechanic and was earning Rs. 15,000/- 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 eight 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 at the time of accident, the deceased/ Ramcharan was aged about 20 years and was a Motor Mechanic and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month whereas the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 7,800/-. Alternatively, he submits that looking to the age, 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 Motor Mechanic but no documentary evidence is brought on record with regard to 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. 9,000/- 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 9,000/- 2. Future Prospects @ 40% 3,600/- 3. Total Income 12,600/- 4. Total Yearly Income 12,600X12= 1,51,200/- 5. Personal expenditure (1/2) 1,51,200/2= 75,600/- 6. Net Income 1,51,200- 75,600= 75,600/- 7. Multiplier of 18 applied to assess total loss of dependency 75,600X18= 13,60,800/- 4 8. Funeral Expenses 16,500/- 9. Loss of estate 16,500/- 10. Filial Consortium 80,000/- Total compensation 14,73,800/- 11. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 13,00360/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,73,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,73,440/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,73,440/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 11.07.2024. 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, two F.D. of Rs. 75,000/-each for a period of two years shall be made in the name of appellant No. 1/ Harilal and appellant No. 2- Khelkunwar and remaining amount shall be disbursed to the appellant No. 1. 13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami