1 CGHC010020682021 2026:CGHC:32071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 65 of 2021 1. Nira Bai Sidar W/o Patthar Singh Sidar, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dhap, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)...............Claimant 2. Vijay Kumar Sidar S/o Patthar Singh Sidar, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Dhap, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)...............Claimant 3. Ambeka, W/o Bachan @ Bhachan, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Karmitikra, Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.............Claimant ... Appellants versus 1. Santosh Yadav S/o Chakradhar Yadav, Aged About 33 Years R/o Gordhikala, Bhudupara, Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of Alleged Vehicle) 2. Future General India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Raipur Address Shop No. 3, Second Floor, Maruti Business Park, Near Ghuppal Petrol Pump Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Alleged Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.29 12:20:00 +0530 2 (27.07.2026) 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 05.02.2020, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribuna, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (CG), in Motor Accident Claim Case No.11/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Patthar Singh Sidar, who died in a road accident that took place on 18.04.2014. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, which, according to him, is even lower than the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also inadequate and deserves to be enhanced in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents oppose the submission made by the counsel for appellants and submit that in the facts and circumstances of case, the award passed by the Tribunal is just & proper and does not require any enhancement. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Though it was claimed by the claimants that the deceased 3 was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as a carpenter at the time of accident, no documentary evidence in this regard has been brought on record. The accident occurred on 18.04.2014 and the minimum wages of even an unskilled labourer at that time was Rs.5,468/-. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.5,468/-, resulting in an annual income of Rs.65,616/-. 6. The accident occurred on 18.04.2014. At the time of accident, the deceased was approximately 45 years of age. There are total three claimants i.e. the wife and the two children of the deceased, 7. Considering the date of incident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the addition towards future prospects, the deduction towards personal expenses and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal are just, proper and in accordance with law. However, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads are required to be enhanced suitably in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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, the compensation is recomputed as under:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income 4500x12 =54,000 5468 x 12 =65,616 2. Future prospects (+)25% (i.e.13500) = 67500 (+)25% (i.e.16404) = 82,020 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 22500) =45000 (-)1/3 (i.e. 27340) = 54680 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = 6,30,000 (x) 14 = 7,65, 520 5. Other conventional heads 70,000/- Rs. 1,50,000 [15,000 + 15,000 + 1,20,000 (40,000 x 3)] Total Rs. 7,00,000/- Rs. 9,15,520/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 9,15,520/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,00,000 /-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,15,520/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the filing of claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 11. 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 reside. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai