1 CGHC010084522024 2026:CGHC:31699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 527 of 2024 1 - Smt. Gayatri Jagat Wd/o Late Haribhajan, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dhaurabhanta, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil And P.S. Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Purnima Kumari, D/o Late Haribhajan, Aged About 12 Years Being Minor They Are Represented By Their Mother A-1. R/o Village Dhaurabhanta, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil And P.S. Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sonia Kumari, D/o Late Haribhajan Aged About 9 Years Being Minor They Are Represented By Their Mother A-1. R/o Village Dhaurabhanta, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil And P.S. Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deepanjali Kumari, D/o Late Haribhajan, Aged About 5 Years Being Minor They Are Represented By Their Mother A-1. R/o Village Dhaurabhanta, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil And P.S. Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Krishna Kumar S/o Late Haribhajan Aged About 2 Years Being Minor They Are Represented By Their Mother A-1. R/o Village Dhaurabhanta, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil And P.S. Pali, District Korba SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.07.27 11:10:23 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh. 6 - Bhagwan Singh S/o Chamaar Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Dhaurabhanta, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil And P.S. Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Laxmin Bai, W/o Bhagwan Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Dhaurabhanta, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil And P.S. Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 Jitendra Yadav, 28 years, S/o Krishna Kumar Yadav, R/o- Vishrampur Gevra Basti Kusmunda, P.S.-Kusmunda, District Korba (CG) (Driver) 2 - Manoj Kumar S/o Sangam Prasad R/o Gevra Basti Kusmunda, P.S. Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle C G- 12-S-3531) 3 - Branch Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. Address -E-18. Pi.O. Rico Industrial Area, Sitaram Jaipur, Rajasthan. --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Died For Respondent No.2 : None For Respondents No.3 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (24.07.2026) 1. Service report of notice to Respondent No.1 received unserved with a report that he died. 3 2. Heard on IA No.01/2026, an application for seeking permission to delete the name of Respondent No.1. 3. For the reasons stated in the application (IA No.01/2026), the same is allowed. Accordingly, the appellants are permitted to delete the name of Respondent No.1. Let necessary amendment be incorporated during course of the day. 4. 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 16.01.2024, passed in Claim Case No.76/2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,78,600/- as compensation for the death of Haribhajan who died in a road accident which took place on 14.10.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding lesser amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side, which needs to be enhanced. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 6. 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered 4 their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. In the case at hand, true it is that the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.7,020/-, which ought to be Rs.7,930/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 9. 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. 7020 x 12 = 84,240/- Rs. 7930 x 12 = 95,160/- 2. Future prospect --------- (+)25% (i.e. Rs. 23,790) = 1,18,950/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/5 (i.e. 16848) = 67,392/- (-) 1/5 (i.e. 23790) = 95,160/- 4. Future prospect (+)25% (i.e. Rs. 16848) = 84,240/- -------- 5. Multiplier (x) 15 = (x) 15 = 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 12,63,600/- 14,27,400/- 6. Other conventional heads Rs. 3,15,000/- Rs. 3,10,000/- (15000+15000+2,8 0,000) Total Rs. 15,78,600/- Rs. 17,37,400/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.15,78,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,37,400/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.15,78,600/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,58,800/-. 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. 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 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 -Shubham