1 CGHC010060202024 2026:CGHC:31793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 394 of 2024 1 - Shankar Gowda @ Shankar Manhira S/o Late Bhima Gowda Aged About 61 Years Resident Of Bargaon, Police Station - Sinapali, Nuapada, Odisha. 2 - Smt. Gomti Gowda @ Gomti Manhira W/o Shri Shankar Gowda @ Shankar Manhira Aged About 51 Years Resident Of Bargaon, Police Station - Sinapali, Nuapada, Odisha. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Sadanand Tandi S/o Shri Kumarmani Tandi Aged About 35 Years Permanent Resident Of Village And Post - Naihana, Police Station - Khariar, District Nuapada, Present Address - Mata Road Carrier, In Front Of Lunkad Petrol Pump, Hirapur, Raipur (C.G.), (Driver Of Vehicle Truck C.G.04—Ml-7200). 2 – J.S. Transport Corporation Through The Branch Manager, Address - Mata Road Carrier, Opposite Lunkad Petrol Pump, Hirapur, Raipur (C.G.), (Owner Of Vehicle Truck C.G.04--Ml-7200),,...(Non- Applicant No.2). 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Address - Branch Office No.3, Bajrang Market, G.E. Road Raipur (C.G.), (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck C.G.04—Ml-7200). ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. For Intervener : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.27 10:15:35 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (24.07.2026) 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 31.10.2023, passed in Claim Case No.893/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.13,00,360/- as compensation for the death of Late Ghanshyam Manhira, who died in a road accident which took place on 19.12.2018. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased, Ghanshyam Manhira, was employed with SIS Limited, and his salary certificate was duly exhibited as Exhibit P-11. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in discarding the monthly salary of 20,297/- reflected in Exhibit P-11 and, instead, the ₹ Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as 7,800/- per ₹ month, which is on the lower side. Counsel, therefore, prays that the compensation be re-calculated based on the certified salary of 20,297/-, the appeal be allowed, and the award ₹ passed by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 3. Vide order of this Court dated 22.04.2026, Mr. Sunil Pillai, the counsel representing the agency, has been directed to verify Salary Certificate (Exhibit P-11) and submit a report. The report was received; according to this report (Annexure P-1), the deceased's salary ranged between 12,000 to 13,000 per ₹ ₹ month. His date of joining was 08.09.2017, and his date of exit was 30.04.2018; thus, he had already left the job seven to eight months prior to the accident on 19.12.2018. 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 awarded the compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by 3 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, the learned Tribunal has indeed taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,800 for unskilled labourer on the date of accident. Looking to the report (Annexure P-1) and considering the deceased as skilled labourer, it would proper to take his monthly income of Rs.9,570/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for skilled labour. Therefore, 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. 7800x12 = 93,600/- Rs. 9570x12 = 1,14,840/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 37,440) = 1,31,040/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 45,936) = 1,60,776/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 (i.e. 65,520) = 65,520/- (-) 1/2 (i.e. 80388) = 80,388/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 11,79,360/- (x) 18 = 14,46,984/- 5 Other conventio nal heads Rs. 1,21,000/- Rs. 1,21,000/- Total Rs. 13,00,360/- Rs. 15,67,984/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.13,00,360/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,67,984/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.13,00,360/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,67,624/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal 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 H.L. Sahu