1 2026:CGHC:19428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1247 of 2023 1 - Smt. Rambai Nisad W/o - Late Guruprasad Nishad Aged About 45 Years R/o - Village Jhalmala, Post Office Narra, Police Station Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund, C.G. 2 - Ku. Dulaurin Nisad D/o Late Guruprasad Nishad Aged About 22 Years R/o - Village Jhalmala, Post Office Narra, Police Station Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund, C.G. 3 - Ku. Khileshwari Nisad D/o Late Guruprasad Nishad Aged About 21 Years R/o - Village Jhalmala, Post Office Narra, Police Station Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund, C.G. 4 - Khemanlal Nisad S/o Late Guruprasad Nishad Aged About 19 Years R/o - Village Jhalmala, Post Office Narra, Police Station Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund, C.G. 5 - Basanti Nisad S/o Late Guruprasad Nishad Aged About 18 Years R/o - Village Jhalmala, Post Office Narra, Police Station Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund, C.G. 6 - Smt. Tijmatbai Nisad W/o Late Dallu Nishad Aged About 68 Years R/o - Village Jhalmala, Post Office Narra, Police Station Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund, C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Pramod Kumar Pandey S/o Chintamadi Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Patharri, Police Station Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband, C.G. (Driver Of Motor Cycle No. C.G.-06 K-4437). 2 - Rajkishor Pandey S/o Laxman Pandey Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 06 Panjabi Para, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, C.G. (Owner Of Mini Motor Cycle No. C.G.-06 K-4437). 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. L.I.C. Building, Vyavsayik Parisar, Pandari Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. (Insurance Company Of Motor Cycle No. C.G.-06 K-4437). ---- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 2 27.04.2026 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) (for short, “the learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. H-16/2022. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 18,05,650/- to the appellants/claimants on account of the death of deceased Guruprasad Nishad in a motor accident that occurred on 06.06.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (motorcycle) bearing Registration No. CG-06- K-4437, driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2, and insured with respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same on 12.06.2021 during the course of treatment. 3) Brief facts as per pleadings are that, on 06.06.2021 at about 10:00 a.m., Guruprasad Nishad was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-06-JC-9709 along with his maternal uncle, Ajiram Nishad, for immersion of the ashes of Kejabai Nishad at Rajim Mahanadi. Another motorcycle carrying Gaindaram and Puran Nishad was following them. At about 11:00 a.m., near the canal culvert of village Koma, the rider of motorcycle (Discover) bearing registration No. CG-06-K-4437, driving at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle from behind, causing the accident. As a result, Ajiram Nishad and Guruprasad Nishad sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to Balaji Hospital, Raipur, where Guruprasad Nishad succumbed to his injuries on 12.06.2021 during treatment. 4) As per the further pleadings, the deceased was about 45 years of age and was working as a Rajmistri and painter, earning approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants, being the wife, children, and parents of the deceased, were wholly dependent on his income. It is further stated that approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- was incurred towards his medical treatment. Accordingly, the claimants filed an application 3 seeking compensation of Rs. 29,60,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. 5) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (driver and owner) filed their written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that if any compensation is awarded, the liability should be borne by the Insurance Company (respondent No. 3). 6) Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company), in its written statement, denied the averments and pleaded that no accident had occurred involving the insured vehicle. It was further contended that two vehicles were involved in the accident and that the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling was also negligent. Thus, there was contributory negligence, and the driver/owner/insurer of that vehicle were necessary parties but had not been impleaded, rendering the claim defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties. It was also contended that both drivers did not possess valid and effective driving licences and there was violation of the policy conditions. 7) On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues and, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, decided the issues in favour of the claimants and awarded the aforesaid compensation. 8) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that though the income of the deceased was pleaded as Rs. 10,000/- per month, he was in fact earning more, being engaged as a Rajmistri and painter, which falls under the category of skilled labour. It is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing his income at Rs. 9,200/- per month. Hence, the compensation deserves to be enhanced. 9) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 supports the award and submits that in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income on the basis of minimum wages at Rs. 9,200/- per month and that no interference is warranted. 10)I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record. 4 11)The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that although the income was pleaded as Rs. 10,000/- per month, the deceased was earning more, whereas the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 contends that the income cannot exceed the amount pleaded. 12)It is well settled that in motor accident claim cases, the Tribunal and Courts are required to award “just compensation”, which should neither be meagre nor bonaza. The Courts are not precluded from awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed, if it is found to be just and reasonable based on the evidence on record. 13) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274, in Para 21 held that there is no restrictions under the Act of 1988 to award compensation amounts exceeding the claim amount by tribunal/ Court. Para 21 is quoted hereinbelow:- “21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that Tribunal/ Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award 'Just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the M.V. Act. If required, in appropriate cases, Court may permit amendment to the Claim Petition. 5 14) In view of the above, the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the income of the deceased cannot be taken beyond Rs. 10,000/- is rejected. 15) The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,200/- treating him as an unskilled labourer on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time. However, in the present case, it is evident that the deceased was about 46 years of age and six dependents were relying on his income, namely, his widow aged about 45 years, four children aged about 22, 21, 19 and 18 years, and his mother aged about 68 years. 16) Taking into account the nature of work, number of dependents, age of the deceased, date of accident, and the prevailing minimum wages at the relevant time, this Court is of the view that the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering inflationary trends, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 11,000/-, which can safely be taken as a reasonable income for sustaining a family of 6 dependents. 17) 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 11,000/- 2. Future Prospects @ 25% 2,750/- 3. Total Income 13750/- 4. Total Yearly Income 13750 X12= 1,65,000/- 5. Personal expenditure (1/4) 1,65,000/4= 41,250/- 6. Net Income 1,65,000-41,250= 1,23,750/- 6 7. Multiplier of 13 applied to assess total loss of dependency 1,23,750 X13= 16,08,750/- 8. Funeral Expenses 16,500/- 9. Loss of estate 16,500/- 10. Spousal Consortium to appellant No. 1 44,000/- 11 Parental Consortium to appellants No. 2 to 5 40,000x4 =1,60,000/- 12 Filial Consortium to appellant No. 5 40,000/- Medical expenses 1,90,150 Total compensation 20,75,900/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 18,05,650/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 20,75,900/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 18,05,650/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,70,250/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of claim appeal i.e. 31.07.2023. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12) The respondent No. 3–Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of sixty (60) days from today. On deposit tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhance amount of compensation and rest of the conditions as ordered by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyoti