1 2026:CGHC:13750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1512 of 2025 Smt. Sushila Vishvakarma Wd/o Late Kuman Vishvakarma aged about 49 years R/o Village Sankra Kapsada, Dhamdha, Durg (C.G.) At Present Ward No. 12, Village Bodari , Post And P.S. Chakarbhatha Tahsil Bilha District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1. Mahesh Kumar Kurre S/o Prabhuram Kurre aged about 43 years R/o Dhimar Para Kugda, Police Station and Tahsil Kumhari District -Durg (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicle Motorcycle No. CG-07- BG- 4377) 2. Deepak Das Manikpuri S/o Shatruhan Das aged about 47 years R/o Ward No. 19, House No. 372, Adarsh Nagar, Kukda, Bhilai Charauda, Police Station And Tahsil Kumhari, District - Durg (C.G.) ( Owner of Vehicle Motorcycle No. CG-07- BG- 4377) 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Office Ground Floor, Vanijyik Bhawan, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ( Inurer Of Vehicle Motorcycle No. CG-07- BG- 4377)) ... Respondents For Aappellant : Shri Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Gunjanrani Agrawal on behalf of Shri Shekhar Rao Sahib, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board dated 23.03.2026 2 Heard on IA No. 01/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. This appeal arises out of the award dated 09.07.2024 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") Bilaspur, CG in Claim Case No. 1466/2022 awarding a compensation of Rs. 15,19,448/- in favour of the appellant/claimant. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that on 12.08.2022 in the midnight when deceased Khileshwar Vishwakarma was going on his motorcycle, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07-BG-4377 ridden by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently came and hit him. In the said accident deceased suffered injuries on his head and other parts of the body and succumbed to the same on the spot itself. Criminal case for the offence under Section 304-A IPC was registered against the rider of the offending vehicle and after investigation charge sheet was also filed. 5. With aforesaid facts, a claim petition was filed by the appellant/claimant praying for compensation of Rs. 23,48,000/- on various heads. Pleadings of the claimants have, however, been denied by the respondents. 6. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,19,448/- to the appellant/claimant as compensation as a whole and it is this award which is under challenge in this appeal. 7. Counsel for the appellants submits that the assessment of the income of the deceased is on the lower side and needs enhancement. He submits that though the deceased being a mason was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken it at Rs. 9,540/- and thus committed an illegality in so doing. Same, according to him, is the position with the amount 3 awarded on other heads also, and being so the compensation awarded is required to be enhanced. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No.3 has supported the award impugned and submitted that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle himself (the deceased) and therefore the claimant is not entitled for any enhancement in the awarded sum. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 10. From the pleadings of the respective parties and the overall evidence on record it is clear that the accident occurred with the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3 and was being ridden by respondent No. 1. From the pleadings it is apparent that the deceased at the relevant time was aged about 23 years and was working as a mason. Learned Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs 9,540/- which in the considered opinion of this Court appears to be inappropriate. Since the deceased was a mason by profession, monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 10,000/- and annual at Rs. 1,20,000/-. 11. 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: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Annual Income 1,20,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,20,000 x 40% Future Prospects = 1,68,000 4 Rs. 48,000 + 1,20,000 = 1,68,000) 3 Income after Deduction towards Personal Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.1,68,000/2 = 84,000 84,000 4 Loss of Dependency after Application of Multiplier (Rs.84,000 x 18 = Rs.15,12,000) 15,12,000 5 Funeral Expenses 16,500 6 Loss of Estate 16,500 7 Consortium to mother 40,000 Total Compensation = 15,85,000 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 15,19,448 Enhancement in Compensation = 65,552 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellant/claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs. 65,552/-. The en- hanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the instant appeal till realisation of the enhanced compensation. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:38:12 +0530