-1- 2026:CGHC:2652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1179 of 2023 1 - Kalesar Gond S/o. Late Ashwa, Aged About 50 Years R/o. Village Khairi, Thana And Tahsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. -- Claimants -- 2 - Smt. Ruhla Bai Gond, W/o. Kalesar Gond, Aged About 49 Years R/o. Village Khairi, Thana And Tahsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pitambar Gond, S/o. Kalesar Gond, Aged About 17 Years Appellant No. 3 Is Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Kalesar Gond (Appellant No. 1) Village Khairi, Thana And Tahsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - S. Subhramani S/o. Subrayan, Aged About 35 Years R/o. Tandavarayapuram, Post - Aatur, Thana - Aatur, District - Saleem, State - Tamil Nandu, Pin No. 636108. -- (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. T.N. 77/c./5185) -- Driver-- 2 - T.R. Tayeevegan, S/o. Rathinasamy, Aged About 45 Years R/o. D.N.O. 5/429, Nattar Street, Tandav - Raipuram, Thana - Aatur, District - Salem, State - Tamil Nandu, Pin No. 636108. Owner -- (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. T.N. 77/c./5185). 3 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Rama Trade Center 2nd Floor, Opposite Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Thana - Civil Line, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Pin 495001. Insurer -- (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. T.N. 77/c./5185). ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For respondent No.3/Insurance : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.01.2026 REKHA SINGH -2- 1) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned 10th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.500/2019 dated 25.02.2023 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.14,03,340/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Suresh Nageshi. 3) Mr. Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that on 10.02.2019, when the deceased was returning to Village-Khairi along with his friend on his motorcycle, the driver of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.T.N.77/C/5185 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of deceased,resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. Mr. Singroul would further submit that the claimants, who are parents and minor brother of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Act, wherein, they pleaded that age of the deceased was 22 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It is also pleaded that the deceased was a mason. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has assessed income of deceased Rs.8,200/- per month which is at lower side. Mr. Singroul would further contend that the claimants specifically pleaded and established the fact that the deceased was a mason. He would also contend that the claimants examined Nand Kumar Nageshi (AW3) to prove the fact that the deceased was deployed by the said -3- witness as mason. He would submit that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the said piece of evidence. It is also contended that the Insurance Company failed to prove contrary. He would fairly submit that on conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Aziz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Singroul. He would submit that the claimants failed to prove income of the deceased by leading cogent evidence. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Admittedly, the deceased met with an accident on 10.02.2019 and succumbed to death. The claimants pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was a mason. 7) Kaleshwar Gond (AW1) on affidavit stated that the deceased was a mason. In cross-examination, he categorically stated that he was a mason. Durgesh Singroul (AW2) also stated that the deceased was a mason. In cross-examination, this witness remained firm on this point. Nand Kumar Nageshi (AW3) deposed that he was a contractor and -4- deceased was working as mason under him. The Insurance Company failed to lead evidence to prove contrary. 8) Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimants could not establish the fact that the deceased was a mason and assessed his monthly income Rs.8,200/-. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to income appear to be erroneous. The claimants pleaded sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the deceased was a mason, therefore, learned Tribunal should have treated the deceased a skilled labourer. The minimum wages admissible to a skilled labourer in the month of February, 2019 was Rs.9,490/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of deceased. On other heads, learned Tribunal has granted just compensation. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.8,200x12= Rs.98,400/- Rs.9,490x12=Rs.1,13,880 2. Future Prospect 40% of 98,400 = 39,360/- 98,400 + 39,360 = 1,37,760 40% of 1,13,880 =45,552/- 1,13,880 + 45,552=1,59,432 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 =Rs.68,880 1,37,760 – 68,880 = 68,880/- (-) 1/2= 79,716/- 1,59,432 – 79,716 = 79,716 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs. 12,39,840 (x) 18 =Rs. 14,34,888/- -5- 5. Other heads- loss of Consortium (for appellants No.1 & 2) Rs.44,000 x 2 = 88,000/- Rs.88,000/- 6. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No.3) Rs.44,000/- Rs.44,000/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 8. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 9. Total Rs. 14,03,340/- Rs. 15,98,388/- 10) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.14,03,340/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,98,388/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.14,03,340/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,95,048/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of award shall remain intact. 11) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha