1 CGHC010355872024 2026:CGHC:31700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1957 of 2024 1 - Smt. Dasmi Bai Wd/o Late Manglu Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Toyar, Sirhapara, P.S. Mardoom, Disrict Bastar, C.G. (Claimant) 2 - Ku. Hadme Mandavi D/o Late Manglu Ram Aged About 10 Years (Through Res. No. 1 Mother) R/o Village Toyar, Sirhapara, P.S. Mardoom, Disrict Bastar, C.G. (Claimant) … Appellants versus 1 - Mangalram Kashyap S/o Budhram Kashyap Aged About 38 Years R/o Loharpara, Alwa, P.S. Kodenaar, District Bastar, C.G. (Driver) (Non-Claimant) 2 - Smt. Anita Rangwani W/o Hardayal Singh Rangwani Aged About 49 Years R/o Housing Board Colony, Near Sai Mandir, Dharampura No. 1, Jagdalpur, P.S. Jagdalpur, Disrict Bastar, C.G. (Owner) (Non- Claimant) 3 - Branch Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 3rd Floor, 345-347, Lalganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Ring Road, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, C.G. (Insurer) (Non- Claimant) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondents : None present Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 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 29.08.2024, passed in Claim Case No. 79/2023, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 7,14,800/- as compensation for death of Bamlu Ram Mandavi, aged about 15 years, who died in a road accident which took place on 16.09.2022. 2. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 4000/- per month. Added 40% future prospects. Considered the fact that the deceased was a minor and unmarried person, one-half of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. Considered the age of the deceased as 15 years, multiplier of 18 was applied. Further, a total amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- has been awarded under other heads. Accordingly, the total compensation of Rs. 7,14,800/- 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. 3. 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. He further submits that the Tribunal has assessed lesser income of the deceased which needs to be enhanced as per minimum wages notification prevailing at the time of accident. 3 Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and compensation needs to be enhanced suitably. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel versus Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871. 4. None present for the respondents. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. In the case at hand, true it is that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 and the Claims Tribunal found that due to rash and negligent driving of driver- Mangalram, the accident was occurred. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 7,14,800/- to the claimants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment. It is further held that in such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises, relevant para 9 is reproduced herein- below “9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is 4 evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well- entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non- earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very lease, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors.(2020) 4 SCC 413, and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692.” 7. In view of above, no documentary evidence has been adduced regarding the education of the deceased, therefore, the deceased Bamlu Ram Mandavi ought to be considered as semi skilled labour and his monthly income ought to be considered as Rs. 10,610/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. The annual income comes to Rs. 1,27,320/ (10,610x12)-. As per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects would 5 be 40% as held by the Tribunal. Hence, after adding 40% towards future prospect i.e. Rs. 50,928/-, the yearly income comes to Rs.1,78,248/- (Rs. 1,27,320+50,928/-). 8. The deceased was unmarried, so deduction towards personal expenses one-half rightly held by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 89,124/- After deduction of the same, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 89,124/-. 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 18. Hence, after applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 16,04,232/-. In addition, this Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,21,000/- under the conventional heads i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, considering that the accident occurred in the year 2022 and that a 10% enhancement under the conventional heads is applicable. The said award is just and proper. 9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors1 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors2, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 10,610/- 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 2. Addition towards loss of future prospects 40% Rs.4,000 +1,600 = Rs.5,600/- Rs. 10,610 + 4244 = Rs. 14,854/- 3. 1/2 Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.2,800/- Rs. 7,427/- 4. After applying multiplier of 18 Rs. 2,800 x 12 x 18= Rs. 6,04,800/- Rs. 7,427 x 12 x 18= Rs.16,04,232/- 5. Loss of consortium to claimants Rs. 40,000/- to claimants (Total = Rs. 80,000) Rs. 44,000/- to claimants (Total = Rs. 88,000) 6. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 7. Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/- TOTAL Rs.7,14,800/- Rs. 17,25,232/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.7,14,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 17,25,232/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,14,800/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 10,10,432/- (Rs.17,25,232-7,14,800/-). The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from filing of the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 12. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the 7 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 AMIT PATEL