1 CGHC010026982023 2026:CGHC:33039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 189 of 2023 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office- Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.....................(Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1 - Lakshminath Yadav S/o Sundar Singh Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Ramaram, Police Station Sukma, Tehsil Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh..............(Claimant) 2 - Smt. Reeta Yadav W/o Lakshminath Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Ramaram, Police Station Sukma, Tehsil Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh..............(Claimant) 3 - Vasu Yadav S/o Lakshminath Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Ramaram, Police Station Sukma, Tehsil Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh..............(Claimant) 4 - Vikas Yadav S/o Lakshminath Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Ramaram, Police Station Sukma, Tehsil Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh..............(Claimant) 5 - Aman Yadav S/o Lakshminath Yadav Aged About 13 Years R/o Village Ramaram, Police Station Sukma, Tehsil Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh, Since Minor Represented Through His Guardian Father Shri Lakshminath Yadav................(Claimant) 6 - Manish Kumar Jha S/o Shri Vijay Jha Aged About 28 Years R/o Gurugovind Singh Ward No.36, Parpanaka Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh..............(Owner And Driver) --- Respondent(s) SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.08.03 13:19:57 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 5 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (30.07.2026) 1. This is an insurer’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 01.11.2022 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No.103/2021 for reduction of the amount of compensation, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,28,200/- with interest @ 6 per annum as compensation in favour of the claimants for death of Akash Yadav who was aged about 15 years, 6 months and 11 days and died in a road accident which took place on 17.12.2020. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased, Akash Yadav, was 15 years, 6 months and 11 days and he was unmarried. Therefore, the deduction towards personal and living expenses ought to be 1/2 instead of 1/3, which was erroneously applied by the Tribunal. It is, thus, prayed that the amount of compensation be suitably reduced. 3. Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 5 submits that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, rightly deducted the amount towards personal and living expenses. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, in the case of an unmarried deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses is required to be 50%. The deceased, Akash Yadav, was 15 years, 6 months and 11 days old and unmarried at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in applying deduction of 1/3 instead of 1/2. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be suitably modified by applying 50% deduction. CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE CLAIMANTS 6. Learned Counsel for the claimants has argued that the deceased was the student of 10th Class which is also held by the Tribunal in paragraph 19 of the award, therefore, his monthly income ought to be Rs.10,390/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for skilled person. Furthermore, in other conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted only Rs.1,21,000 which ought to be 2,53,000/-. Therefore, the cross appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 7. In this regard, learned Counsel for Insurance Company submits that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly 4 assessed the income of the deceased and also given proper amount towards other conventional heads, therefore, the cross-appeal filed by the Claimants may be rejected. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel versus Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871, observed 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. 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 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 5 Simon and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692.” 9. In the case at hand, true it is that the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/-, which ought to be Rs.10,390/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for skilled person. Furthermore, in other conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted only 1,21,000 which ought to be 2,53,000/-. The Tribunal has also made deduction as 1/3 which ought to be 1/2, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 10. 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. 4500 x 12 = 54,000/- Rs. 10390 x 12 = 1,24,680/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 21,600) = 75,600/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 49,872) = 1,74,552/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 25200) = 50,400/- (-) 1/2 (i.e. 87276) = 87,276/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 09,07,200/- (x) 18 = 15,70,968/- 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 1,21,000/- Rs. 2,53,000/- (16500+16500+220 000) Total Rs. 10,28,200/- Rs. 18,23,968/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.10,28,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.18,23,968/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,28,200/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.7,95,768/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the cross-appeal till its realization. The Claims Tribunal has not treated Respondents No. 3 & 4 as dependents/claimants. However, an amount of Rs. 44,000/- each towards loss of consortium shall be granted to Respondents No. 3 & 4. The remaining conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company and the cross-appeal filed by the claimants are partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 13. 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