1 2026:CGHC:14336 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 477 of 2023 1 - Bheem Singh Parihar S/o Keshav Singh Parihar Aged About 50 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Village Bastar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Shashank Parihar S/o Bheem Singh Parihar Aged About 21 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Village Bastar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Shreyansh Parihar S/o Bheem Singh Parihar Aged About 20 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Village Bastar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Aditya Parihar S/o Bheem Singh Parihar Aged About 18 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Village Bastar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Satpal Singh Parihar S/o Rajendra Singh Parihar Aged About 31 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur (Owner And Driver), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Branch Office- Shop No. 205, M. M. Silver Plaza, Near Mining Office, Raipur (Insurance Co.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 25.03.2026 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 02.11.2022 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (CG) in Claim Case No. 282/2019. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.04.08 10:46:43 +0530 2 2) By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 39,78,000/- the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 17,84,000/- to the appellants/claimants on account of the death of deceased/Shakuntala Parihar in an accident that took place on 27.05.2019 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Car) bearing Registration No. C.G.-17-KP-9222 driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/Shakuntala Parihar suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. 3) As per the pleadings in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the deceased Smt. Shakuntala Parihar was travelling in the offending vehicle along with her husband to Vishakhapatnam. It is alleged that the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and collided with an Eicher truck resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased to which she ultimately succumbed. It was further pleaded that the deceased was about 43 years of age engaged in imparting tuition and running a tiffin centre, and earning approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month. On these grounds, compensation as stated above was claimed. 4) Respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex parte before the learned Tribunal. The claim application was contested by Respondent No. 2 and the insurance company on various grounds, including the plea that the offending vehicle was being operated without a valid permit and fitness certificate and that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence thereby violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed four issues and, upon appreciation of the material available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the compensation as stated above. 6) Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3 10,000/- by equating her to a labourer. It is contended that the deceased was a homemaker and although specific pleadings were made regarding her profession, even otherwise, the income assessed is on the lower side. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation may be suitably enhanced by this Court. 7) Per contra, Mr. Pravesh Sahu learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 supports the award and submits that the deceased was a non-earning member and considering her status as a homemaker, the Tribunal rightly assessed her income at Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is contended that the award does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record. 9) From the record, it does not appear that the appellants/claimants were able to prove the profession and income of the deceased. The deceased, therefore, appears to have been a homemaker. It is well settled that the services rendered by a homemaker to her family cannot be strictly quantified in monetary terms. The learned Claims Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Company (Civil Appeal No. 1920 of 2021, decided on 05.01.2021), and considering the evidence available on record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/-. It does not appear that such assessment equated the deceased with a labourer. Further, the learned Tribunal added 25% towards future prospects in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The Tribunal also placed reliance on Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130; and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati and Others, (2020) 9 SCC 644 and accordingly awarded consortium to the children. 4 10) Considering the evidence on record and the assessment made, the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court finds no ground to interfere with the same. 11) Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari