1 CGHC010465302025 2026:CGHC:33038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2358 of 2025 1 - Rishikesh Mandavi S/o K. L. Mandavi Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Mandir Para Dantewada, P.S. Kotwali Dantewada, District- Dantewada, South Bastar, C.G., Present Address- Dharmpura No. 03 Bangalipara Jagdalpur, District : Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Supriya Mandavi W/o Rishikesh Mandavi Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Mandir Para Dantewada, P.S. Kotwali Dantewada, District- Dantewada, South Bastar, C.G. , Present Address- Dharmpura No. 03 Bangalipara Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Najaam Ansari S/o Late Sekhawat Ansari Aged About 32 Years R/o Dhariyanva, P.S. Jaynagar, Jharkhand Present Address- Through Mahesh Pandit S/o Ramchand Pandit, Resident Plot No. 1115 Dacha Bhawan Kurud, P.S. Kurud, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2 - Mahesh Pandit S/o Ramchand Pandit Aged About 32 Years Resident Plot No. 1115 Dacha Bhawan Kurud, P.S. Kurud, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3 - Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Plot No. 01, Fourth Floor, Maruti Heights Near R.K. Mall, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. (Insured) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate with Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.31 10:16:15 +0530 2 Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate. For other respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (30.07.2026) 1. This is the claimants’ appeal for enhancement against the award dated 20.08.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Motor Accident claim case No.247/2023 whereby a compensation amount of ₹7,40,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 2. Upon a close scrutiny of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent parking of a trailer (Registration No. CG-07-CA-6391) on a public road, in violation of traffic rules. The driver, Najaam Ansari (Respondent No. 1), had parked the vehicle without switching on the parking lights or setting up any warning signals. The vehicle was owned by Mahesh Pandit (Respondent No. 2) and insured by the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3). Consequently, a scooter (Registration No. CG-18-P-9970) collided with the parked trailer, resulting in fatal injuries to the pillion rider, Tanusita Mandavi, in the accident on 25.02.2023. The learned Claims Tribunal further observed that the deceased was admittedly a 4-year-old minor with no earning capacity and was dependent on her father. Although the claimants submitted that the notional monthly income of the deceased should be assessed at 9,000/- ₹ per month considering inflation, the Tribunal rejected this submission. Instead, it relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto & Ors. [2022 (4) ACCD 1915 (SC)], wherein the notional annual income of a minor was fixed at 30,000/-. Considering the deceased was ₹ 4 years old, the Tribunal assessed her notional annual income at ₹30,000/- and applied a multiplier of 15 as per the aforesaid Supreme Court precedent, thereby calculating the base loss of dependency at 4,50,000/- ( 30,000 × 15). Further, relying on ₹ ₹ 3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], the Tribunal held that an addition of 40% towards future prospects was applicable. Adding 40% ( 1,80,000/-) to ₹ the base loss of dependency brought the total loss of dependency to ₹6,30,000/-. Additionally, relying on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018], the Tribunal awarded ₹80,000/- ( 40,000/- each to the parents) towards loss of filial consortium, ₹ ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and 15,000/- towards ₹ loss of estate. Thus, a total compensation of 7,40,000/- was ₹ awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income of the minor deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per annum, which is on the lower side. He further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 15 instead of 18/ As such, the awarded compensation is liable to be enhanced suitably. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 871 and the decision of this Court in the matter of Jawahar Lal & Anr. Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Passed on 05.01.2026 in MAC No. 1107/2022. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that the Tribunal has already passed a just, fair, and reasonable award, therefore, no interference is warranted. 5. On a careful consideration of the material on record, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, namely Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) and Jawahar Lal (supra), are distinct on the facts. Those cases pertained to victims of different age brackets or older minors on the verge of adulthood, where educational background or earning capacity could be more reasonably inferred. The cited cases do not render any assistance to the appellants in altering the compensation matrix 4 for a 4-year-old child, who wasn't even old enough to go to school yet. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award. The compensation assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable, leaving no scope for further enhancement. 7. The appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu