1 CGHC010019092023 2026:CGHC:29105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 191 of 2023 1 - Dabal Sai Minj S/o Late Baldev Ram, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Jatra, Post - Birsinga, Tahsil - Lailunga District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Basanti W/o Dabal Sai, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Jatra, Post - Birsinga, Tahsil - Lailunga District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Divya Minj D/o Dabal Sai, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Jatra, Post - Birsinga, Tahsil - Lailunga District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Sapriyan Minj D/o Dabal Sai, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village - Jatra, Post - Birsinga, Tahsil - Lailunga District - Raigarh (C.G.) Presently Residing At Village - Bhalmanda, Post - Patratoli, Tehsil And District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh 5 - Dilip Minj S/o Dabal Sai, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Jatra, Post - Birsinga, Tahsil - Lailunga District - Raigarh (C.G.) Presently Residing At Village - Bhalmanda, Post - Patratoli, Tehsil And District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1 - Rahul Kumar S/o Madan Sao, R/o Tehsil And District - Laxmi Nagar Piska, More Hehal Sukhdeonagar, Ranchi (Jh) Pin Code - 834005 (Owner) 2 - Kushdil Ram S/o Sobhnath Ram, Aged About 31 Years Profession - Driver R/o Village - Jiling, Post - PPaiku Tehsil And District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Driver) 3 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.13 16:49:12 +0530 2 ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Adv. For Respondents No.1& 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Adv on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Ku. Kushwaha, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (10.07.2026) 1. Heard on application (I.A.) dated 17.05.2026 for dispensing notice to respondents No. 1 & 2. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the liability to pay the compensation is on the insurance company/respondent No. 3; therefore, notice to respondents No. 1 (Owner) and 2 (Driver) may be dispensed with. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has no objection. 4. Upon due consideration, the application is allowed and the issuance of notice to respondents No. 1 and 2 stands dispensed with. 5. This appeal arises out of the award dated 11.10.2022 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 33/2020 awarding a compensation of Rs.15,02,300/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellants. 6. The averment in the claim petition is that the deceased, Sebastian Minj, was working as a supervisor under contractor Mohpat Lal Sarathi of the Electricity Department. On 02.09.2020, while he and clerk Ranbir Singh were at Pugu Petrol Pump on motorcycle No. CG 13 Y-5300 after collecting electrical goods at Gumla, a truck No. Jh-01-CX-5814 driven rashly and negligently by Khushdil Ram collided with them. Due to the said accident, both Sebastian Minj and Ranbir Singh sustained serious injuries and died during treatment at Sadar 3 Hospital, Gumla. It is stated that on the date of the incident, the age of the deceased was 30 years. He was unmarried and was working as supervisor for laying electric lines under the employment of electric contractor Mohapal Sarathi and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- Due to the casual death of the deceased, the appellants preferred an application under Section 166 of the Act to claim a total compensation of Rs. 44,25,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed at Rs. 9,750/- per month, contrary to the evidence produced before the tribunal, as the deceased was working as a supervisor and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He further submits that the awarded amount on the other heads is also on the lower side. As such, the appeal may be allowed, and the compensation suitably enhanced. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company/respondent No. 3 supported the impugned award with regard to the quantum part. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal, including award impugned. 10. In the case in hand, before the claims Tribunal, the appellants/claimants pleaded that the deceased Sebastian Minj was working as a supervisor and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence has been produced thereof. Therefore, considering the wage structure on the date of the accident, the income of the deceased was assessed to Rs. 9,750/- per month. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 30 years old, hence 40% future prospect was added and considering the fact that the deceased was unmarried, a 1/2nd deduction for personal expenses would apply. Further, considering the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 17 would be applied. Thus, looking to the facts of the case, the above- assessed amount of compensation is just and proper which is hereby affirmed. 11. The learned claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4 1,10,000/- on other heads in favour of claimants, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not found proper and needs to be enhanced suitably in the interest of justice. 12. Thus, the claimants/appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, all the claimants/appellants (5 claimants) are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.44,000/- each i.e. Rs. 44,000x5 = Rs. 2,20,000/- towards the head of love and affection. 13. Hence, the claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court 01 Income of the deceased Rs. 9,750/- Rs. 9,750/- 02 After adding 40% future prospect Rs. 9750+3900 = 13,650/- Rs. 9750+3900 = 13,650/- 03 After 1/2nd Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 13,650-6825 = 6825/- Rs. 13,650-6825 = 6825/- 04 After applying multiplier of 17 Rs. 6850x12x17 = 13,92,300/- Rs. 6850x12x17 = 13,92,300/- 05 Towards Loss of consortium to claimants No. 1 and 2 Rs. 80,000/- Nil 06 Towards love and affection to all the five claimants Nil Rs. 44,000x5 = 2,20,000/- 07 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 08 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- Total Rs. 15,02,300/- Rs. 16,45,300/- 14. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 16,45,300/-. 5 After deducting Rs. 15,02,300/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,43,000/-. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants shall be entitled to get Rs. 1,43,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 16. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. 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 claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H. L. Sahu