1 CGHC010261172016 2026:CGHC:29336 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1729 of 2016 1 - Maya Ram Yadav S/o Samaru Yadav, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Salihabhatha, Sumendha, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tanmay Yadav S/o Maya Ram Yadav, Aged About 2 And 1/2 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Maya Ram Appellant No.1 R/o Village Salihabhatha, Sumendha, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dineshwar Yadav S/o Maya Ram Yadav, Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Maya Ram Appellant No.1 R/o Village Salihabhatha, Sumendha, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh .................Claimants ... Appellants versus 1 - Ghanshyam Chandra S/o Munna Chadra, Aged About 28 Years R/o Qtr. No.D S-46, Balgi Colony, P.S. Banki Mongara, Balgi, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ................Driver 2 - Munna Chandra S/o Kapma Mukardam Chandra, Aged About 50 Years R/o Qtr. No.D S-46, Balgi Colony, P.S. Banki Mongara, Balgi, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ................Owner 3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Address- 223-224, 2 Nd Floor Lal Ganga Shoping Mal, G.E.Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer --- Respondent(s) SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.07.15 10:54:03 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (13.07.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 15.01.2016, passed in Claim Case No.40/2013, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,24,356/- as compensation for the death of Nikki Yadav, who died in road accident took place on 01.12.2012. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The Claims Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 & 2 would submit that at the time of incident the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3. Therefore, the liability for paying the compensation is upon Respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company would submit that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly 3 awarded the compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. In the case at hand, true it is that the learned tribunal has not granted any amount towards future prospects of the deceased Nikki Yadav, which ought to be 50% as on the date of incident i.e. 01.12.2012, she was aged about 28 years, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 7. 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. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 4000 x 12 =48000/- Rs. 4000 x 12 =48000/- 2. Future prospect Nil (+)50% (i.e. Rs. 24000) = 72,000/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 16000) = 32,000/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. 24000) = 48,000/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = (x) 17 = 8,16,000/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 5,44,000/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 1,80,000/- Total Rs. 7,24,000/- Rs. 9,96,000/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.7,24,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.9,96,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,24,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,72,000/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from filing of the appeal before this Court till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 10. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned 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 claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham