1 CGHC010352392023 2026:CGHC:31605 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1781 of 2023 1 - Dilharan Miri S/o Parmanand Miri Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Karranala Barbaspur, Post Kuturmal, Police Station Urga, Tahsil And District Korba, C.G., At Present Near Mahamaya Mandir, Ratanpur, Police Station Ratanpur Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Pusauram S/o Mahettar Ram Kaiwart Aged About 47 Years R/o Banahil, Police Station Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Truck No. C.G.-29 A-3685) 2 - Ramesh Kumar Singh S/o Sureswar Prasad Singh R/o Lal Chauk Akaltara, Wart No. 18, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G., Proposed Address - Bhagat Singh Complex, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Truck No. C.G.-29 A-3685) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Officer, Second Floor, Rama Trade Center, Infront Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Truck No. C.G.-29 A- 3685) ... Respondents For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Mohammad Parvez Khan, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate. For Other respondents : None. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.24 14:18:05 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (23.07.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 26.07.2023, passed in M.A.C. Case No.10/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.12,76,584/- as compensation for his injuries, who sustained permanent disability in a road accident which took place on 13.10.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a lesser amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The Claims Tribunal considered the appellant as skilled labour but has assessed the income of the deceased as 7,900/- per month, whereas it should have been Rs.10,710/- per month for the skilled labourer at the date of the accident; therefore, considering the deceased as a skilled labourer, the income of the deceased should be considered on the higher side. The instant appeal should be allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be 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 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 present case, the income of the appellant was not substantiated by any documentary evidence. Although the 3 Tribunal determined that the appellant falls under the category of a skilled labourer, it erroneously assessed his notional income at 7,900/- per month. According to the guidelines ₹ issued by the Labour Department, the minimum wage for skilled labour at the time of the accident (i.e., 13.10.2021) was ₹10,710/- per month. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to re-assess the monthly income of the appellant as ₹10,710/- instead of 7,900/-. ₹ 6. Further, in view of the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, it would be appropriate to calculate 40% future prospect in the monthly income of the injured appellant considering his age (20 years) i.e. Rs 4,284/-, the monthly income of the appellant comes to Rs. 14,994/- (10,710+4,284), thus, the annual income of the injured appellant comes to Rs. 1,79,928/- (14,994x12). 7. The Tribunal, on Exhibit P-88, the certificate of permanent disability issued by the concerned Medical Board to the extent of 50%, has assessed the permanent disability of the claimant regarding his whole body as approximately 40%, as stated by Dr. S.K. Chandel (AW-1), who has examined the claimant; the same has not been challenged by the claimant in this appeal. 8. The annual income of the appellant has been calculated at Rs. 1,79,928/-, the reduction in earning capacity is 40% i.e. Rs. 71,971/-. The age of the appellant was 20 years at the time of accident. In view of the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 by applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of income due to reduction in total earning capacity is Rs. 12,95,478/- (71,971x18). 9. Thus, the total compensation amount is awarded as under:- S.No. Heads Award by the Tribunal Award by this Court 01 Towards loss of future income due to permanent Rs. 9,55,584/- Rs.12,95,478/- 4 disability 02 Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,46,000/- Rs. 1,46,000/- 03 Towards physical and mental agony Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 04 Towards nutritional food Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- 05 Towards attendant Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- 06 Towards transportation Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 12,76,584/- Rs. 16,16,478/- 10.Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 16,16,478/-. After deducting Rs. 12,76,548/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,39,930/-. 11.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 3,39,930/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the tribunal till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 12.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