1 2026:CGHC:2175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1131 of 2020 1. Smt. Puniya Bai W/o Subhash Singh Aged About 50 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Parsa, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2. Deleted (Subhash Singh) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 04- 11-2025 ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Santosh Giri S/o Amar Sai Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Asola Near Shankarghat Nagar, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2. Rakesh Kumar Gupta S/o Devsagar Gupta Aged About 40 Years Occupation Transporting And Business R/o Ward No.21 Near Bouripara School Nagar, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3. The Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Division Office Manendragarh Road Near Ambedkar Chowk Nagar Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Akancha Vishwakarma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.01.15 17:05:07 +0530 2 14.1.2026 1) With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally. 2) Initially, this appeal was preferred by the parents of the deceased but during pendency of this appeal, father of the deceased, namely, Subhash Singh died. 3) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ claimant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Claim Case No. 198/2019 dated 6.3.2020 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 7,50,400/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Alok @ Aalok. 4) Facts of the present case are that on 2.7.2019 at about 7:30 pm, Alok @ Aalok was returning home in Tempo bearing registration No. CG-15-CV-2460 and at the same time the offending vehicle – Chhota Hathi bearing registration No. CG-15-DH-6618 dashed the tempo. In the accident, Alok sustained grievous injuries and died during course of treatment. Parents of the deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,98,000/-. They pleaded that the deceased was aged 23 years and was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month working as agricultural labourer. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed. 3 5) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,500/- per month which is not in consonance with the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. Although, she fairly submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation under conventional heads. She prays to modify the award accordingly. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He submits that claimant has pleaded income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month and led evidence in this regard, therefore she cannot claim higher compensation as per minimum wage matrix. He further submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8) Admittedly, in the claim case, claimant has pleaded that deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and Puniya Bai (AW/1) on affidavit has stated the same. It is true that claimant has pleaded the income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month but it is duty of the Court to grant just and proper compensation. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others1 held that “In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 1. 2003 (2) SCC 274 4 there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is it should be "just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This is clear from Sections 166(1) & (4), 158(6) and 168.” 9) Learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,500/- whereas according to the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, minimum wages payable to an unskilled laborer in July, 2019 was Rs. 8,400/- per month and learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. However, under other conventional heads learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and same does not warrant any interference. 10) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is re- computing the compensation as below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 54,000/- (@Rs. 4,500 pm) Rs. 1,00,800/- (@Rs. 8,400 pm) 2. Annual Income adding Future Prospect Rs. 75,600/- (@40%) Rs. 1,41,120/- (@40%) 5 3. Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 37,800/- (@1/2) Rs. 70,560/- (@1/2) 4. Annual Income after applying Multiplier Rs. 6,80,400- (@18) Rs. 12,70,080/- (@18) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL Rs. 7,50,400/- Rs. 13,40,080/- 11) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 7,50,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,40,080/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,89,680/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact. 12) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a