1 2026:CGHC:26352 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2095 of 2023 1 - Smt. Mamta Yadu W/o Narad Yadu Aged About 47 Years R/o Mahatma Gandhi Ward No. 20 Karma Mata Chowk Dhamtari Post And Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Gokul Trisath S/o Shri Bishatram Trisath Aged About 53 Years R/o Village And Post Rakhi And Tahsil- Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor Mobin Mahal Shahid Memorial Building, G.E.Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None For Respondent No.2 : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 29 / 06 / 2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant/appellant assailing the award dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) in Claim Case No.203/2021, whereby the Tribunal BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.02 10:30:18 +0530 2 awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,30,352/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the appellant/claimant, on account of the death of Shubham Yadav in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The brief facts as pleaded before the Tribunal are that on 01.05.2021 at about 4–5 PM, deceased Shubham Yadav was proceeding on his motorcycle Splendor Plus bearing No. CG-07-BF-3864 from Dhamtari to village Joratarai (Anwari). Near the rice mill situated between village Kurmatarai and Doma, the offending car bearing registration No. CG-05-AD-4652, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 while attempting to overtake another vehicle, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from the side. Due to the impact, Shubham Yadav fell down and sustained grievous injuries on head, shoulder, waist and legs. He was immediately taken to Sub-Health Centre Gujra, then to District Hospital Dhamtari, and considering the seriousness of injuries, he was shifted to D.K.S. Super Speciality Hospital, Raipur where he succumbed to the injuries on 04.05.2021. Intimation was sent by the hospital to P.S. Golbazar, Raipur. On receipt of marg diary, P.S. Bhakhara registered Crime No.129/2021 under Section 304-A IPC against respondent No.1 and filed charge-sheet before JMFC, Kurud. 3. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged about 24 years and was working with Sapna Agency, Dhamtari on a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. The claimant, being the mother of the deceased, was wholly dependent on his income and due to the casual death of Shubham Yadav, there is an irreparable loss to the appellant/claimant. Accordingly, the claimant preferred an application before 3 the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.17,62,000/- under various heads. 4. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that since the claimant failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding salary of the deceased with Sapna Agency, treated the deceased as an unskilled worker and assessed his monthly income at Rs.9,460/- as per minimum wages applicable in District Dhamtari for unskilled workers on 01.05.2021. Treating the deceased aged about 24 years, 40% was added towards future prospects. As the deceased was a bachelor, 1/2 was deducted towards personal expenses. Applying multiplier of 18, loss of dependency was worked out at Rs.14,30,352/-. In addition, Rs.16,500/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium was awarded, making total compensation of Rs.15,30,352/- with 6% interest from date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal is for enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.9,460/- per month. It is contended that even in absence of documentary proof of salary, the income ought to have been assessed at Rs.9,850/- per month by treating him as a semi-skilled worker, keeping in view the evidence of AW-1. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards medical expenses incurred and pain & suffering of the deceased who survived for 3 days after the accident. The amounts under conventional heads are also on the lower side and deserve to be enhanced. Thus, prayed for enhancement of compensation. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – insurance company, opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. So far as income is concerned, claimant – Mamta Yadu (AW- 1) has specifically deposed that the deceased was working in Sapna Agency and earning Rs.10,000 per month. Though the claimant has not filed any salary certificate or examined the employer of Sapna Agency, the evidence of AW-1 regarding the work of the deceased has gone unrebutted. In such circumstances, considering that the deceased was an able-bodied person aged about 24 years, his income is assessed at Rs.9,850/- per month placing him in the category of semi-skilled worker. The deceased was engaged in private job; therefore, as per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, an addition of 40% towards future 5 prospects is required to be made, as has been rightly held by the Tribunal. Thus, the amount comes to Rs.9,850 + 40% i.e. Rs.3,940 = 13,790/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 1/2 is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.6,895/- and annual dependency to Rs.82,740/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi (supra), by applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.14,89,320/-. The deceased survived for three days after the accident and underwent treatment in government hospitals. Even though the treatment was provided in government hospitals, it cannot be overlooked that some expenditure would have been incurred towards treatment and other incidental expenses, as pleaded by the claimant. The deceased was the sole child of the claimant. Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the heads of medical expenses and mental pain and suffering. In view of Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, the conventional heads are to be awarded as Rs.16,500/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The appellant being mother is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards filial consortium/loss of love & affection. Accordingly, the compensation is recomputed as under: Sl. No. Particulars Calculation 1. Monthly income of the deceased 9850 2. Future prospects (40% of the income) 3940 3. Total 13790 4. Personal expenses (1/2 of the income) 6895 6 5. Monthly loss of dependency 6895 6. Annual loss of dependency 82,740 7. Total loss of dependency (applying multiplier of 18) 82,740 x 18 = 14,89,320 8. Funeral Expenses 16500 9. Loss of estate 16500 10. Filial consortium and love & affection 44000 11. Medical treatment and mental pain & suffering 30000 Total compensation Rs. 15,96,320 11. Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.15,96,320/- instead of Rs.15,30,352/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.65,968/- (15,96,320 - 15,30,352) in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. Accordingly, 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 claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Claims Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi (Deonagri) language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimant resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai