1 2026:CGHC:22499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1113 of 2019 1 - Smt. Nirasha Bai W/o Late Manrakhan Kenwat Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Farhada, Tahsil- Akaltara, District-Janjgir- Campa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajkumar Kenwat S/o Late Manrakhan Kenwat Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Farhada, Tahsil- Akaltara, District-Janjgir- Campa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rakesh Kenwat S/o Late Manrakhan Kenwat Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Farhada, Tahsil- Akaltara, District-Janjgir- Campa, Chhattisgarh.................(Claimants). --- Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Rehana Begum W/o Inayat Ulla Qureshi R/o Darrighat, Police Station-Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.............. (Registered Owner Of Mini Bus No. C.G.-G-0741). 2 - Reliance Insurance Company Address-Shop No. 412-413, Fourth Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaytstambh Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh..............(Registered Insurer Of Mini Bus No. C.G.-G-0741). 3 - The Divisional Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Division, Bhatapara, Tahsil-Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chairman Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.05.13 17:53:21 +0530 2 MAC No. 1139 of 2019 1 - Sikander S/o Harprasad Kenwat Aged About 18 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Sinkadar), R/o Village Farhada, Tahsil- Akaltra, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Rehana Begum W/o Inayat Ulla Qureshi R/o Darrighat, Polie Station-Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.............. (Registered Owner Of Mini Bus No. C.G. G-0741). 2 - Reliance Insurance Company Address- Shop No. 412-413, Fourth Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaystambh Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh..........(Registered Insurer Of Mini Bus No. C.G. G-0741). 3 - The Divisional Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chairman Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.............(Non-Applicants). --- Respondents For Appellants :- Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondents :- Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate & Ms. Manshi Bande, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 13/05/2026 1. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in the present two appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The appeal (MAC No. 1113/2019) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) 3 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, against the impugned award dated 24.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. H-17/2012 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of 3,07,600/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Manrakhan Kenwat. 3. The appeal (MAC No. 1139/2019) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant, seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, against the impugned award dated 24.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. H-20/2012 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimant’s application and awarded a sum of 13,42,000/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for his injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present cases. He would also submit that the income of the deceased and injured has calculated on the lower side and under the 4 head of consortium less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be enhanced and awarded. Therefore, the appeals filed by the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the claimants and submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records meticulously. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal has calculated lesser income of the deceased and the injured and awarded less amount under the head of consortium which is liable to be awarded. As such, the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced. 8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , in MAC No. 1113/2019, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income ₹3,000/- ₹4,498/- 2. Future Prospect (+)10% i.e. 300 = ₹3,300/- (+)10% i.e. 449 = ₹4,947/- 3. Deduction (-)1/3 i.e. 1,100/- = ₹2,200/- (-)1/3 i.e. 1,649/- = ₹3,298/- 4. Multiplier 2,200 x 9 = ₹ ₹19,800/- ₹3,298 x 9 = ₹29,682/- 5. Annual Income ₹19,800 x 12 = ₹2,37,600/- ₹29,682 x 12 = ₹3,56,184/- 6. Loss of Estate ₹15,000/- 15,000/- ₹ 7. Funeral Expenses ₹15,000/- 15,000/- ₹ 8. Consortium (Claimants 1 & 2) ₹40,000/- ₹40,000 x 2 = 80,000/- ₹ Total ₹3,07,600/- ₹4,66,184 /- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of 3,07,600 ₹ /- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 4,66,184 ₹ /-. Hence, after deducting the amount of 3,07,600 ₹ /-, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of 1,58,584/- ₹ . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 @6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. In MAC No. 1139/2019, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income ₹3,000 x 12 = 36,000/- ₹ ₹4,449 x 12 = ₹53,388/- 2. Future Prospect (+)50% i.e. 18,000 = 54,000/- ₹ (+)50% i.e. 26,694 = ₹80,082/- 4. Multiplier ₹54,000 x 18 = 9,72,000/- ₹ ₹80,082 x 18 = ₹14,41,476/- 5. Special diet ₹20,000/- ₹20,000/- 6. Pain and suffering ₹50,000/- 1,00,000/- ₹ 7. Transportatio n Nil 20,000/- ₹ 8. Medical expenses ₹1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- ₹ Attendant Nil 30,000/- ₹ Permanent disability and mental pain ₹2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- ₹ Total ₹13,42,000/- 19,11,476/- ₹ 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of 13,42,000 ₹ /- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 19,11,476 ₹ /-. Hence, after deducting the amount of 13,42,000 ₹ /-, the 7 appellant/claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of 5,69,476/- ₹ . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge H.L. Sahu