1 CGHC010270632024 2026:CGHC:31992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1582 of 2024 1 - Smt Ramkali Wd/o Late Bhuneshwar Patel Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 30 Vicharpur, Police Station Sahaspur/lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Sheshnarayan Patel S/o Late Bhuneshwar Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 30 Vicharpur, Police Station Sahaspur/lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Gulabdhar Patel S/o Late Bhuneshwar Patel Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. 30 Vicharpur, Police Station Sahaspur/lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Appellants. versus 1 - Dhalendra Verma S/o Jhagru Ram Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Singarpur, Police Station Sahaspur / Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) (Driver And Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration Cg- 09-Jk-7494) 2 - The Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor Gwalani Chamber T-8, I.C.I.C.I. Near Bank Main Road Vyapar Vihar Road, Police Station Tarbahar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration Cg- 09-Jk-7494). ... Respondents (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Appellants/claimants For Respondent No.1 (Driver & Owner). For Respondent No.2/Insurance Company Mr. CK Sahu, Advocate None. Ms. Prachi Sharma, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (27.07.2026) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/claimants for enhancement against the award dated 10.05.2024 passed by 04th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur, (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 131/2022, whereby compensation of Rs.12,27,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellants has been awarded. 2. The gist of the claim before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 01/11/2021 at about 4:00 p.m., the deceased Bhuneshwar Patel was proceeding on foot at that time, offending motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-09-JK-7494, being driven by respondent No.1 from the side of Gram Panchayat Vicharpur towards Silhati, came from behind and, due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, dashed against the deceased Bhuneshwar Patel. As a result of which, deceased Bhuneshwar Patel sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The incident was reported to the concerned Police Station, where Crime No.292/2021 was registered against respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. It is claimed that at the time of alleged accident, deceased Bhuneshwar Patel was aged about 47 years, he was working as Raj Mistri (Mason) 3 and thereby earning Rs.18,000/- per month. Due to the death of deceased, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are family members of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants had preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 40,10,000/- u/s 166 of MV Act. 4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 8,060/- per month. Added 25% future prospects. Considered the fact that the claimants are the wife and son, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. Considered the age of the deceased as 47 years, multiplier of 13 was applied. Further, a total amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has been awarded under other heads. Accordingly, the total compensation of Rs.12,27,800/- has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum against the respondents, from the date of application. Hence, the appeal is for enhancement. 5. 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. Learned counsel for appellants urged that the Tribunal has assessed lesser income of the deceased which needs to be enhanced from Rs.8,060/- to Rs.9,280/- per month as per minimum wages notification prevailing at the time of accident. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and compensation needs to be enhanced suitably. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued 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. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that deceased Bhuneshwar Patel was working as Raj Mistri (Mason) and thereby earning Rs.18,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident ie 01/11/2021, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. specially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs.9,280/- per month. The annual income comes to Rs.1,11,360/-. As per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects would be 25% as held by the Tribunal. Hence, after adding 25% towards future prospect i.e. Rs. 27,840/-, the yearly income comes to Rs.1,39,200/-. The deceased was married, claimants are their wife and son, (total 3 5 dependents), so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3rd as rightly held by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.46,400/-. After deduction of the same, the annual dependency comes to Rs.92,800/-. 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 13. Hence, after applying multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.12,06,400/-. 9. Rs.1,80,000/- has been awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal towards other conventional which is just and proper. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.13,86,400/- (Rs.12,06,400/- + Rs.1,80,000/-). 10. After deducting Rs.12,27,800/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.1,58,600/- (Rs.13,86,400 - 12,27,800). 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.1,58,600/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition. The rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 12. The Registry is 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 6 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 J.