1 2026:CGHC:5166 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A(C) No.1461 of 2023 1 - Smt. Sushila Bai W/o Late Jageshwar Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Sothi (Kundrunar), P.S. Seepat, Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Vandana Kumari, D/o Late Jageshwar Singh, Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sushila Bai, R/o Sothi (Kundrunar), P.S. Seepat, Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sanjana Meravi D/o Late Jageshwar Singh, Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sushila Bai, R/o Sothi (Kundrunar), P.S. Seepat, Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shrishti, D/o Late Jageshwar Singh, Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sushila Bai, R/o Sothi (Kundrunar), P.S. Seepat, Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.01.31 11:08:18 +0530 2 5 - Smt. Geeta Bai W/o Late Dhan Singh, Aged About 61 Years R/o Sothi (Kundrunar), P.S. Seepat, Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Nimala Kumari @ Vimla, D/o Late Dhan Singh, Aged About 21 Years R/o Sothi (Kundrunar), P.S. Seepat, Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1 - Raja Shrivas S/o Santosh Shrivas, Aged About 22 Years R/o Diprapara, Sothi, P.S. Seepat, Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.............(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.10-BF/7331 2 - Amit Kumar Shrivas, S/o Santosh Shrivas, Aged About 20 Years R/o Diprapara, Sothi, P.S. Seepat, Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)..............(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.10-BF/7331) 3 - Chola Mandlam, M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Main Road Vyapar Vihar, Near Vinayak Netralaya, Bilaspur, P.S. Tarbahar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..............(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.10-BF/7331) ... Respondents For Appellants : Shri AL Singroul along with Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocates. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No.3. : Shri Shaswat Yechuri on behalf of Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocates. 3 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 30.01.2026 1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, assailing the award dated 05.05.2023 passed by the 10th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (for short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.541/2022, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,34,750/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of the death of Jageshwar Maravi in a motor accident. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that on 10.01.2022, while the deceased was proceeding to the vegetable market on a motorcycle along with his sister, the offending motorcycle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his vehicle as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed on the same day. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 42 years and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as a driver. The Tribunal, however, assessed his income at Rs.9,300/-, which is on lower side. He contends that the Claimants have placed on record the driving license of the deceased to establish that he was driver and the evidence led by them in this regard could not be rebutted. It is fairly submitted that 4 compensation granted under the conventional heads is just and proper and the grievance of the Appellants is confined to the assessment of income. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Claimants failed to prove that the deceased was gainfully employed as a driver and no documentary evidence of income was adduced, therefore, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income conservatively and the award calls for no interference. 4. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties, perused the impugned award as also gone through the entire record with due care. 5. The record reveals that though the Claimants have produced the driving license of the deceased, there is no cogent evidence to establish that he was employed as a professional driver or drawing a fixed salary. In absence of reliable proof of income, the appropriate course is to adopt the minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident. For January, 2022, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer were Rs.9,800/- per month, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, ought to be taken as the notional monthly income of the deceased. The deceased being aged 42 years, the applicable multiplier is 14. As the dependents are more than two, 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses is warranted. 5 Further, in terms of the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and subsequent decisions, 25% addition towards future prospects is permissible. The compensation under conventional heads awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 6. Since the Tribunal has failed to compute the income part of the deceased properly, therefore, the compensation awarded requires reconsideration, which is being revisited hereunder:- Sr. No. Heads Calculation by this Court (i) Annual Income 9,800 × 12 = Rs.1,17,600/- (ii) Less 1/4th towards personal expenses 1,17,600 − 29,400 = Rs.88,200/- (iii) Add 25% towards future prospects 88,200 + 22,050 = Rs.1,10,250/- (iv) Applying Multiplier of 14 1,10,250 × 14 = Rs.15,43,500/- (v) Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- (vi) Loss of Care, Guidance and Affection (minor children & parents) 40,000 × 5 = Rs.2,00,000/- (vii) Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- (viii) Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.18,13,500/- 7. Accordingly, the total compensation payable to the Claimants is re-determined at Rs.18,13,500/- as against Rs.17,34,750/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Claimants shall thus be entitled to an enhanced sum of Rs.78,750/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of 60 days 6 from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Priya