1 CGHC010406882022 2026:CGHC:30082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 4 of 2023 1 - Smt. Jaimani Manjhi S/o Late Surendra Singh Manjhi Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Lakhna, Post Office Lakhna, Police Station Lakhna, Khariar, Nuapada, Orissa, 766105. Presently Resident Of Changorabhatta, Near Vegetable Market, Beside Lane Of Government School, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh...........Claimant. 2 - Raisingh Manjhi S/o Late Surendra Singh Manjhi Aged About 05 Months, (Represented Through His Mother Namely Smt. Jaimani Manjhi), R/o Village Lakhna, Post Office Lakhna, Police Station Lakhna, Khariar, Nuapada, Orissa, 766105. Presently Resident Of Changorabhatta, Near Vegetable Market, Beside Lane Of Government School, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh..........Claimant. 3 - Naresh Manjhi S/o Late Paban Singh Manjhi Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Lakhna, Post Office Lakhna, Police Station Lakhna, Khariar, Nuapada, Orissa, 766105. Presently Resident Of Changorabhatta, Near Vegetable Market, Beside Lane Of Government School, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh..........Claimant. ...Appellants versus 1 - Hussain Mirdha S/o Shri Baishakhu Mirdha Aged About 24 Years R/o Mahulpati, Turekala, Police Station Turekela, Balangir, Orissa 767038. (Driver Of Vehicle Od 03 P 2210) Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 2 - Ghanshyam Agrawal R/o Kukurmunda, Post Office - P. Rampur, Bolangir, Balangir, Orissa. (Owner Of Vehicle Od 03 P 2210) 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office - No.1, Behind Commerce Building, Chawla Complex, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Od 03 P 2210) -- Respondent(s) (Cause-titles are taken from CIS) For Appellants : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (15.07.2026) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/claimants for enhancement against the award dated 02.11.2022 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 853/2019, whereby compensation of Rs.9,56,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellants has been awarded. 2. The gist of the claim before the Tribunal, in brief, is that on 20.08.2019 at about 3:00 p.m., near Village- Thakurpali Pokan–Lakhna Khurmuri Road, Police Station Lakhna, District Nuapada (Odisha), the Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-03-P-2210, driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle bearing Registration No. OD-26-A-4544. As a result of the accident, the deceased Surendra Singh Manjhi died on the spot and one Nuroopa Manjhi sustained grievous injuries. On the basis of the report lodged at 3 Police Station Lakhna, District Nuapada, Odisha, a crime was registered. 3. It it claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Surendra Singh Manjhi was aged about 35 years and was married. He was working as a Supervisor in Pressy Max Roller, Rajkot and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. Due to the untimely death of Surendra Singh Manjhi, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the wife, minor son, father and brothers of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants had preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 80,00,000/- u/s 166 of MV Act. 4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6000/- per month. Added 40% future prospects. Considered the fact that the claimants are the wife, minor son, father and brothers of the deceased, one-half of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. Considered the age of the deceased as 31 years and 09 months, multiplier of 16 was applied. Further, a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded under other heads. Accordingly, the total compensation of Rs. 9,56,400 has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum against respondent/insurance company, from the date of application. Hence, the appeal is for enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. Learned counsel for appellants urged that the deceased was a married person and that the Claims Tribunal 4 erred in deducting one-half of the income towards personal expenses instead of one-third. He further submits that the Tribunal has assessed lesser income of the deceased which needs to be enhanced to Rs. 8,400/- per month as per minimum wages notification prevailing at the time of accident. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and compensation needs to be enhanced suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly awarded the compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was employed as a Supervisor at Pressy Max Roller, Rajkot and was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident 20.08.2019, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. specially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 8,400/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident. The annual income comes to Rs. 1,00,800/-. As per National Insurance 5 Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects would be 40% as held by the Tribunal. Hence, after adding 40% towards future prospect i.e. Rs. 40,320/-, the yearly income comes to Rs.1,41,120/-. 9. The deceased was married and the claimants are the wife, minor son and father, so deduction towards personal expenses would be one- third instead of one-half as wrongly held by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 47,040/-. After deduction of the same, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 94,080/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier would be 16. Hence, after applying multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 15,05,280/-. In addition, Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded under other conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc., which is just and proper. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 16,55,280/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Heads Calculation Compensation towards dependency Rs. 15,05,280/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Towards spousal consortium to appellant No. 1= Rs. 40,000/- parental consortium to appellant No.2 = Rs. 40,000/- & filial consortium to Rs.1,20,000/- 6 appellant No. 3= Rs. 40,000/- (Total= Rs. 1,20,000/-) Total Rs. 16,55,280/- 10. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 16,55,280/-. After deducting Rs.9,56,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 6,98,880/- (16,55,280-9,56,400). 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.6,98,880/ in addition to what has already been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. The rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 12. The Registry is 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 the co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge AMIT PATEL