1 CGHC010346582024 2026:CGHC:31262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1967 of 2024 1 - Smt. Renuka Nihal W/o Late Vijay Nihal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Bakama Police Station, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Ku. Varidhi Nihal D/o Late Vijay Nihal, Aged About 3 Years, (Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Renuka Nihal). --- R/o Village Bakama Police Station, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Mangalu Ram Dhidhi S/o Dukaluram Dhidhi, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Amavash, Police Station Tumgaon, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Motorcycle No. CG 04 MU 2774). 2 - Jivan Lal Kurre S/o Khorbahara Ram Kurre Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Amavash, Police Station - Tumgaon, District Mahasamun, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Motorcycle No. CG 04 MU 2774). 3 - Branch Manager, The New Insurance Co. Ltd., L.I.C. Building, Commercial Complex 1st Floor, In Front Of Shyam Square Pandari Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Motorcycle No. CG 04 MU 2774). 4 - Lakhan Lal Nihal S/o Late Shobhai Ram Nihal Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Amethi, Police Station - Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 2 5 - Smt. Mirabai Nihal W/o Lakhan Lal Nihal, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Amethi, Police Station - Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondents No.1, 2, 4 & 5 : None For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (22.07.2026) 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 the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 15.03.2024, passed in Claim Case No.H-166/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.28,51,120/- as compensation for the death of Vijay Nihal, who died in a road accident which took place on 12.07.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding lesser compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded future prospects at the rate of 40%, which is on the lower side, and has also awarded lesser amounts under the other conventional heads. It is, therefore, prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company would submit that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly awarded the 3 compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has granted 40% towards future prospects which ought to be 50% after considering the age of the deceased and the fact that he was employed as a Home Guard Sainik and was a salaried employee and, in other conventional heads the Tribunal has granted only Rs.1,60,000/- which ought to be 2,28,000/-, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 6. 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. 13,200 x 12 = 1,58,400/- Rs. 13,200 x 12 = 1,58,400/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 63,360) = 2,21,760/- (+)50% (i.e. Rs. 79,200) = 2,37,600/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 55,440) = 1,66,320/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 59,400) = 1,78,200/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = 26,61,120/- (x) 16 = 28,51,200/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 5. Loss of Estate (+) 15,000/- (+) 18,000/- 6. Funeral Expense (+) 15,000/- (+) 18,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium (+)1,60,000/- (+) 1,92,000/- Total Rs. 28,51,120/- Rs. 30,79,200/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.28,51,120/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.30,79,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.28,51,120/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,28,080/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 9. 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/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge $ourabh