1 2026:CGHC:14341 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 700 of 2021 1 - Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Dhaneshwar Sharma Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Church Road, Near Durga Mandir Shanti Nagar Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Priti Sharma D/o Ashok Kumar Sharma Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Church Road, Near Durga Mandir Shanti Nagar Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Kavita Sharma D/o Ashok Kumar Sharma Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Church Road, Near Durga Mandir Shanti Nagar Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Nandini Sharma D/o Ashok Kumar Sharma Aged About 15 Years Through Her Natural Guardian Appellant-1, R/o Village Church Road, Near Durga Mandir Shanti Nagar Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Shivam Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma Aged About 11 Years Through Her Natural Guardian Appellant-1, R/o Village Church Road, Near Durga Mandir Shanti Nagar Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.08 14:38:27 +0530 2 1 - Rupendra Kumar Yadav S/o Late Nilkanth Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Baila Bazar Mandir Gali Near Deenanath Doubleroti, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahesh Sao S/o Shri K. K. Sao R/o Shakti Singh Gali, Shanti Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ......(Owner) 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch OfÏce, First Floor, Shanti Chhavi Tower Sirasar Square Powerhouse Road, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Bhatia, Advocate and Shri H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent No.3/insurance company : Shri Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, 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 ‘the MV Act’) calls in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 22.2.2021 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.13 of 2019. 2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.11,13,040 on account of death of Smt. Manju Sharma in an accident that occurred on 21.10.2018 by 3 rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration No.CG 04 JA 5747 driven by respondent No.1/Rupendra Kumar Yadav, owned by respondent No.2/Mahesh Sao and insured with respondent No.3/National Insurance Company Limited. 3. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 43 years. She was a transporter and was also running a grocery stores. She was earning total Rs.25,000 per month. She met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which resulted into her death. Total compensation of Rs.44,38,700 was claimed. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3/insurance company denied the averments of the claim application. Respondent No.3/insurance company also pleaded that one other vehicle was involved in the accident whose owner and insurer were not impleaded as party to the claim application. Respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the offending vehicle. The insurance company also pleaded violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in driving the offending vehicle. The vehicle scooty on which the deceased was riding was being driven by her daughter rashly and negligently and she did not have any licence to drive the scooty. 4 5. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was running a business of transportation. She had two commercial vehicles registered in her name and she was earning Rs.25,000 per month. Her husband/appellant No.1 is a differently able person and does not have capacity to earn and survive the family. The entire family was dependent upon the income of the deceased. Thus, this Court can safely assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.25,000, which the learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding to Rs.8,040 per month. Learned counsel prays that a suitable enhancement be made in the compensation. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company supports the impugned award. He submits that no documentary evidence is brought on record to support the income of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased rightly and has awarded just compensation. He submits that no interference is warranted. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with due care. 9. According to the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was a transporter and was earning Rs.25,000 per month. Perusal of the record indicates that there were two commercial vehicles, 5 one was a light commercial vehicle (Ex.A21C) and another was a heavy goods vehicle (Ex.A22C) registered in the name of the deceased. The documents/disability certificates exhibited as Ex.A11 and Ex.A12C go to show 60% permanent physical disability in right leg of appellant No.1/husband. Thus, this Court can safely infer that appellant No.1/husband may not be able to continue with the business of the deceased. There are total 5 dependents shown in the claim application including 4 children. 3 of them are daughters and one is minor son. They must have been dependent upon the income of the deceased. Considering all aspects of the matter and the evidence available on record, this Court cannot hold that the case of the deceased can be considered as a home maker. The material available on record shows that she was running a transport business and 2 commercial vehicles were registered in her name and she would be earning at least Rs.2,00,000 per year from said transport business. Thus, this Court assesses annual income of the deceased to Rs.2,00,000. 10. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner: 6 Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Annual Income 2,00,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.2,00,000 x 25% Future Prospects = Rs.50,000; Rs.2,00,000 + Rs.50,000 = Rs.2,50,000) 2,50,000 3 Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.2,50,000 / 4 = Rs.62,500; Rs.2,50,000 – Rs.62,500 = Rs.1,87,500) 1,87,500 4 Loss of Dependency after Application of Multiplier (Rs.1,87,500 x 14 = Rs.26,25,000) 26,25,000 5 Funeral Expenses 15,000 6 Loss of Estate 15,000 7 Spousal Consortium to Husband 40,000 8 Parental Consortium to Children (Rs.40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000) 1,60,000 Total Compensation = 28,55,000 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 11,13,040 Enhancement in Compensation = 17,41,960 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.17,41,960. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the instant appeal till final payment of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with the interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, Rs.3,00,000 each, total Rs.15,00,000 shall be 7 invested in fixed deposit in the names of all the appellants in a nationalised bank for a period of 2 years. Rs.50,000 each, total Rs.2,00,000, shall be disbursed to appellants No.2 to 5. Remaining amount shall be disbursed to appellant No.1. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal