1 2026:CGHC:17681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 356 of 2023 1 - Smt. Nirmala Barkare W/o Late Geetaram Barkare Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Udangi, P.S. Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Presently Resident Of C/o Shri Ashwani Sidar, Q.No. D/12, Subhash Block, S E C L, Colony Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Yonit S/o Geetaram Barkare Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Smt. Nirmala Barkare W/o Lage Geetaram Barkare, By Caste Gond, R/o Village Udangi, P.S. Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Presently Resident Of C/o Shri Ashwani Sidar, Q.No. D/12, Subhash Block, S E C L, Colony Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Harsh S/o Late Geetaram Barkare Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Smt. Nirmala Barkare W/o Lage Geetaram Barkare, By Caste Gond, R/o Village Udangi, P.S. Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Presently Resident Of C/o Shri Ashwani Sidar, Q.No. D/12, Subhash Block, S E C L, Colony Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar Rathore S/o Dwarika Prasad Rathore Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Syahimudi, Post Gopalpur, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Office Main Road , Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 17.04.2026 2 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 30.11.2022 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba District Korba (C.G.) (for short, “the learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 143/2019. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 47,37,740/- to the appellants/claimants on account of the death of deceased Geetaram Barkare in a motor accident that occurred on due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-12-R-1357, driven by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased Geetaram Barkare was aged about 40 years and was working as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, earning Rs. 29,877/- per month. The appellants/claimants were wholly dependent upon his income, Therefore, the claimants have filed the application seeking compensation of Rs. 1,06,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. 4) Respondent No. 1 (driver) filed his written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company), in the usual course, also denied the averments and further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and permit and that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed five issues and, upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the aforesaid compensation. 6) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in the computation of compensation by incorrectly assessing the age of the deceased. It is contended that as per Ex. P/9, i.e., the 3 High School Certificate, the date of birth of the deceased Geetaram Barkare is 26.12.1973, and the date of accident being 05.11.2013, he was aged 39 years, 10 months and 09 days at the relevant time. Though the learned Tribunal, in paragraph 19 of the impugned award, has duly recorded the said age, it has wrongly rounded it off to 40 years for the purpose of calculation, which has materially affected the quantum of compensation. It is further submitted that since the deceased was below 40 years of age and was in permanent employment as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, the appellants are entitled to addition of 50% towards future prospects; however, the learned Tribunal has failed to grant the same, thereby warranting enhancement of the compensation. 7) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 supports the award and submits that, in view of the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are just and proper, and the compensation awarded is fair and reasonable. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record. 9) Considering the evidence available on record, it is evident that the deceased Geetaram Barkare was employed as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and that the appellants/claimants, being his dependents, were wholly reliant upon his income, including his young widow, two minor children, and his aged mother. The material on record, particularly Ex. P/9, establishes that the deceased was aged about 39 years, 10 months and 09 days at the time of the accident. Taking into account the nature of his permanent employment and his age being below 40 years, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to addition towards future prospects at the rate of 50% of the established income, in accordance with the settled legal principles. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is liable to be enhanced by adding 50% towards future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation. 4 10) It is settled principle of law that just compensation has to be awarded. Compensation need not be a meagre amount of compensation nor a bonanza. Thus, 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 29,877/- 2. Future Prospects @ 50% 29,877 × 50%=14,938 3. Enhanced Monthly Income 29,877 + 14,938 = 44,815 4. Annual Income 44,815 × 12 = 5,37,780 5. After deduction from Taxable Income 3,37,780 6. Income Tax @ 10% 10% of 3,37,780 = 33,778 6. Net Annual Income 5,37,780−33,778 = 5,04,002 7. Personal expenditure (1/3) 5,04,002/3=1,68,000 8. Net Income 5,04,002−1,68,000= 3,36,002 9. Multiplier of 15 applied to assess total loss of dependency 3,36,002 X15= 50,40,030/- 10 Funeral Expenses 15000 11. Loss of Estate 15000 12. Spousal Consortium 40,000 13. Parental Consortium to appellants No. 2 & 3 40000x2=80000 14 Total Compensation 51,90,030/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 47,37,740/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 51,90,030/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 47,37,740/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,52,290/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum 5 from the date of appeal 01.03.2023. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12) The respondent No. 2–Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of sixty (60) days from today. Upon such deposit being made, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each shall be invested in the name of appellants No. 2 & 3 in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in any Nationalized Bank for 5 years. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be invested in the name of appellant No.1 in FDR in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. The balance amount shall be released to appellant No. 1 by way of bank transfer/account payee cheque. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyoti