1 2026:CGHC:8382 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1266 of 2023 1. Smt. Roopa Agrawal W/o Late Chandrashekhar Kumar Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o House No.77, Phase-2, Road No.5/a, Maitri Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, Risali, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Wife Of Deceased Chandrashekhar Kumar Agrawal) (Claimant No.01) 2. Kumari Archie Kiran D/o Late Chandrashekhar Kumar Agrawal Aged About 24 Years R/o House No.77, Phase-2, Road No.5/a, Maitri Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, Risali, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Daughter Of Deceased Chandrashekhar Kumar Agrawal) (Claimant No.02) 3. Ishitva Agrawal S/o Late Chandrashekhar Kumar Agrawal Aged About 22 Years R/o House No.77, Phase-2, Road No.5/a, Maitri Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, Risali, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Son Of Deceased Chandrashekhar Kumar Agrawal) (Claimant No.03) 4. Smt Ramkumari Devi W/o Late Badri Prasad Agrawal Aged About 86 Years R/o Street No.02, Suresh Singh Chowk, Panki Road, Ward No.25, Daltonganj, Tehsil And District Daltonganj, Jharkhand. (Mother Of Deceased Chandrashekhar Kumar Agrawal) (Defendant No.04) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Rahul Jain S/o Late Devichand Jain Aged About 32 Years R/o Sundarganj Ward, Ward No.04, Dhamtari, P.S. City Kotwali, Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Mahindra Tuv 300 No. Cg-05-Ex-7806) (Defendant No.01) 2. Ashish Mittal S/o Girdhari Lal Mittal Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Nirmal Dharamkanta, Mittal Nursing Home, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Mahindra Tuv 300 No. Cg-05-Ex-7806) (Defendant No.02) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Address- Branch Office, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Mahindra Tuv 300 No. Cg-05-Ex-7806) (Defendant No.03) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Sakshi Chhabda, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.02.24 11:40:18 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.02 .2026 1. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation assailing the judgment and award passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg passed in Claim Case No. 306/2021 dated 16.02.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 1,50,44,986/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death of Chandrashekhar Kumar Agrawal. 2. Ms. Sweksha Sharma would submit that though the learned Tribunal has granted proper compensation, but considered the age of the deceased 56 years as on the date of accident his age was 55 years and 2 days and applied multiplier of 9. She would submit that the learned Tribunal should have considered the age of the deceased 55 years and for age of 55 years the correct multiplier would be 11. She has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in the matter of P.O. Meera and Anr. vs. Ananda P. Naik and Ors passed in MACA No. 2476 of 2008, in that matter the deceased had completed age of 50 years and 7 days, therefore High Court held that though the deceased had completed age of 50 years but he had not attained the age of 51 years, and applied multiplier of 13 instead of 11. The relevant paragraph 38 is reproduced herein-below :- “38. In the light of the above discussion and as Madhavan had only completed 50 years and 7 days, and had not attained the age of 51 years, the relevant multiplier to be selected is ‘13’ and not '11' as wrongly applied by the Tribunal. Hence, I set aside the finding of the Tribunal in this regard, and adopt the multiplier of ‘13’ in O.P (MV) No.1056/2002. Accordingly, I answer 3 point No.(ii) in favour of the appellants.” 3. Mr. Anupam Dubey would submit that on the date of accident the age of the deceased was more than 55 years and multiplier of 9 attracts for age group of 56 to 60, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly applied multiplier of 9. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the present case, date of birth of the deceased is 05.02.1966. Deceased met with an accident on 07.02.2021, thus, on the date of accident age of the deceased was 55 years and 2 days. The learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased 56 years on the ground that he had completed 55 years of age on the date of accident and applied multiplier of 9. In my opinion, though the deceased had completed 55 years of age, but he had not completed 56 years of age; therefore, the learned Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 11 instead of 9. Thus, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited herein-below :- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 24,98,090/- (Annual Income ) - Rs. 5,84,405 (Income Tax) = Rs. 19,13,685/- Rs. 24,98,090/- (Annual Income ) - Rs. 5,84,405 (Income Tax) = Rs. 19,13,685/- 2. Future Prospect (15%) = 2,87,052.75/- (15%) = 2,87,052.75/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 Rs. 5,50,184/- Rs. 16,50,554/- (-) 1/4 Rs. 5,50,184/- Rs. 16,50,554/- 4. Multiplier (x) 9 = Rs. 1,48,54,986/- (x) 11 = Rs. 1,81,56,094/- 5. Loss of Estate 4 Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 6. Funeral expenses 7. Loss of Spousal Consortium (for appellant No. 1) 8. Loss of Parental consortium(for appellant No. 2) Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 80,000/- 9. Loss of Parental consortium(for appellant No. 3) 10. Loss of Filial consortium(for appellant No. 4) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL Rs. 1,50,44,986/- Rs. 1,83,46,094/- 6. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,44,986/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,83,46,094/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,50,44,986/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 33,01,108/- with interest at the rate of 9%. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 7.Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant