1 2026:CGHC:23240 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1311 of 2023 1 - Smt. Namita Nirmalkar W/o Late Sunil Kumar Nirmalkar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Chikhli, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2 - Kumari Pankhudi D/o Late Sunil Kumar Nirmalkar, Aged About 6 Years, Being Minor Through Natural Guadian Mother Smt. Namita Nirmalkar, Aged About 26 Years, W/o Late Sunil Kumar Nirmalkar, R/o Ward No. 6, Chikhli, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 1 - Govind Nishad S/o Khikram Nishad, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Kushalpur, Tiranga Chowk, Thana Purani Basti Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Guneshwar Prasad Sharma S/o Laxman Prasad Sharma R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Dagniya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office IInd Floor Simran Tower, Infront Of LIC Building, Pandri, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : Unserved due to not residing at the address provided For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.05.19 11:52:37 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 15 / 05 / 2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 27.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 62/2020 awarding compensation of Rs.18,63,176/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants. 2. The gist of the claim before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 19.04.2020, Sunil Kumar Nirmalkar (deceased) was going from Sundar Nagar, Raipur to Kushalpur, Raipur via Pahadi Talab on his motorcycle, Hero Smart Splendor bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 LE 1388, for cable-laying work. At about 11:00–12:00 am, respondent No.1, Govind Nishad, who was driving a Creta car bearing Registration No. C.G.04MN 6611 from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the deceased’s motorcycle. As a result of the accident, Sunil Kumar Nirmalkar, sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts of the body. He was immediately rushed to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur for treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. 3 3. It was claimed that at the time of incident the deceased was aged about 33 years and was earning Rs.12,000 per month from cable-laying/installing work. Due to the casual death of Sunil Kumar Nirmalkar, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the wife, daughter & parents of the deceased (the parents of the deceased were arrayed as Non- applicants No.4 & 5 in the claim petition). Therefore, the claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 35,00,000/-. 4. Upon a close scrutiny of the evidence on record and the pleadings made in the application, learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at 8,860, ₹ amounting to an annual income of 1,06,320 ( 8,860 x 12). ₹ ₹ The Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 16, thereby calculating the total loss of dependency at ₹17,86,176. Additionally, the Tribunal awarded 77,000 under other conventional heads. Thus, ₹ the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of 18,63,176 ₹ in favour of the claimants, carrying interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application until its realization. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants pleaded that the monthly income of the deceased 4 was 12,000, however, the Tribunal erred in assessing it at ₹ a lower rate of 8,860. The Tribunal failed to assess the ₹ proper monthly earning capacity of the deceased. He further submits that the Tribunal has also awarded lesser amount under other conventional heads, which needs to be enhanced suitably. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants prays that the present appeal may be allowed, and the compensation amount be suitably enhanced. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellants and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of 18,63,176 ₹ awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As regards the income of deceased, the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month from 5 cable-laying work. However, no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. In absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, the minimum wage rate structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc., specially the notification by the Labour Department for minimum wages, the monthly income of ₹8,860 fixed by the Tribunal is found proper. Thus the annual income comes to Rs.1,06,320 (8,860x12). As per the National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, the addition of 40% towards future prospects by the Tribunal is also justified and with this addition of 42,528, the total annual income amounts to ₹ 1,48,848. ₹ 10. There are a total of four claimants: the wife, a daughter and the parents of the deceased. Therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th, as rightly held by the Tribunal. After deducting 1/4th for personal expenses, the income comes to ₹1,11,636 (1,48,848 – 37,212). In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Suprme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC l2l and National Insurance 6 Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and considering the age of deceased, the applicable multiplier would be 16, as rightly held by the Tribunal. After applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to 17,86,176 (1,11,636 x 16). ₹ Under the conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted a total sum of 77,000/- which appears to be on the lower ₹ side. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled for ₹16,500/- towards loss of estate and 16,500/- for funeral ₹ expenses. As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, each of the four claimants is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and love and affection totaling ₹1,76,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to total compensation calculated in the following manner:- No. Heads Compensati on awarded by the Tribunal Modified/ enhanced amount Total 1. Total loss of dependency 17,86,176 17,86,176 2. Under other conventional heads (16,500 + 16,500 + 1,76,000) 77,000 2,09,000 2,09,000 Total compensation 19,95,176 11. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed to ₹19,95,176 from which after deduction of ₹ 18,63,176 as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be 1,32,000/-. ₹ 7 12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of 1,32,000/- ₹ in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 13. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing about the “enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of para-legal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area where the claimants reside. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai