1 CGHC010283712023 2026:CGHC:34834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1518 of 2023 1 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address Office No. 501 And 512, 5th D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Jagatram Verma S/o Kejuram Verma, Aged About 59 Years, Occupation Service (Agriculture Work) R/o Village Amola, Tahsil And P.S. Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Urmila Bai Verma W/o Shri Jagatram Verma, Aged About 55 Years, Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Amola, Tahsil And P.S. Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sudhir Kumar Jain, S/o Kundan Lal Jain, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 17, Shivanand Nagar, Near Ganesh Temple, Khamtarai, Raipur, P.S. Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ruchi Jain W/o Sandeep Jain, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 17, Shivanand Nagar, Near Ganesh Temple, Khamtarai, Raipur, P.S. Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (07.08.2026) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 14.06.2023 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.08.10 17:07:29 +0530 2 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 173/2021. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 43,90,000/- in favour of the claimants and fastened the liability to satisfy the award upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at 30,000/- ₹ by treating him as a selected candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) solely on the basis of the letter dated 09.01.2020 issued by the Office of the District Education Officer, Raipur. He further submits that a perusal of Exhibit P-10 reveals that the said letter merely called upon the deceased to appear on 23.01.2020 for verification of his original documents. The letter neither constitutes an appointment order nor contains any stipulation regarding the terms and conditions of service, the pay scale, or the salary payable to the deceased. He further submits that the learned Tribunal, on a purely conjectural and hypothetical basis, presumed that the deceased had entered into service and, on that premise, assessed his monthly income at 30,000/- ₹ . He next submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded future prospects at the rate of 50% to the deceased, whereas it ought to have been 40% because he had not a salaried person. He further contends that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased is contrary to the evidence available on record, legally unsustainable, and therefore liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that, having regard to the educational qualifications of the deceased and the other relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the deceased, at the highest, ought to have been assessed on the basis of the wages payable to a skilled worker. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and on the higher side and, accordingly, deserves to be reduced suitably. 3 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants submits that the letter vide Exhibit P-10 pertains to the period of the COVID-19 pandemic and that, for this reason, the deceased could not join the said post. He further submits that the deceased, Dev Narayan, was a graduate (B.A.) and had also obtained a PGDCA from Dr. C.V. Raman University. In addition, he had completed an ITI course from Swami Vivekanand University. His educational certificates have been brought on record as Exhibits P-2 to P-9. He further submits that the said letter Exhibit P-10, issued by the Office of the District Education Officer, Raipur, is the appointment letter of the deceased and that, on the basis of the said document, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed monthly income of the deceased at 30,000/- ₹ . It is, therefore, contended that the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, upon perusal of the entire record, it is evident that the deceased, Dev Narayan, was aged about 33 years and was unmarried at the time of the incident. The claimants are his parents/guardians. Upon perusal of the documents available on record, i.e., the mark sheet of the deceased, marked as Exhibit P-2; the NCC certificate, marked as Exhibit P-3; the mark sheet issued by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, marked as Exhibit P-4; the B.A. Final Year mark sheet issued by Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, marked as Exhibit P-5; the PGDCA mark sheets issued by Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur, marked as Exhibits P-6 and P-7; the mark sheet of the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test, 2016, marked as Exhibit P-8; and the mark sheet issued by Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, marked as Exhibit P-9, it is evident that the deceased was well educated. Further, upon perusal of the letter 4 issued by the Office of the District Education Officer, Raipur, regarding verification of the documents of the deceased, marked as Exhibit P-10, it appears that the deceased had been declared a successful candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher. However, there is no cogent and reliable material on record to establish the salary that the deceased would have drawn upon his appointment as an Assistant Teacher. It is also pertinent to note that Exhibit P-10 is a letter dated 09.01.2020, which was issued prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the deceased died on 24.05.2021.Furthermore, no document has been produced on record to establish that, pursuant to Exhibit P-10, the deceased had appeared before the concerned office for verification of his documents, or that he had actually joined the service. In the absence of any such material, merely on the basis of Exhibit P-10, it cannot be conclusively held that the deceased had secured an appointment or had commenced service as an Assistant Teacher. 6. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- on the basis of the letter marked as Exhibit P-10. However, in the opinion of this Court, in the absence of sufficient material to establish the actual or probable income of the deceased, and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sebati Nath & Ors. Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. 1 , and in Meena Pawaia & Ors. v. Ashraf Ali & Ors.2the monthly income of the deceased is appropriately assessed at Rs. 20,000/-. Further, considering that the deceased was 33 years of age at the time of the accident, the learned Claims Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects to his income. However, the addition towards future prospects ought to have been 40%. The learned Tribunal thereafter deducted 1/2 of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and applied a multiplier of 16. The deduction towards personal and living 1 (2025) SCC Online SC 3468 2 (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1083 5 expenses and the multiplier so applied are found to be just and proper. Under the conventional heads, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/-, whereas the amount payable under the said heads ought to have been Rs. 1,21,000/-. Accordingly, to the aforesaid extent, the impugned award warrants modification, and the compensation is liable to be re- assessed on the basis of the monthly income of the deceased and the amounts payable under the other relevant heads of compensation. 7. 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 Sethi3, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors4 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors5, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 30,000 x 12 = 3,60,000/- Rs. 20,000 x 12 = 2,40,000/- 2. Future prospect (+)50% (i.e. Rs. 1,80,000) = 5,40,000/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 96,000) = 3,36,000/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 (i.e. 2,70,000) = 2,70,000/- (-) 1/2 (i.e. 1,68,000) = 1,68,000/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = 43,20,000/- (x) 16 = 26,88,000/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- (15,000+15,000+ 40,000) Rs. 1,21,000/- (16,500+16,500+88,0 00) Total Rs. 43,90,000/- Rs. 28,09,000/- 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 8. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 28,09,000/- instead of Rs. 43,90,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The amount awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.43,90,000 /- is hereby reduced to Rs.28,09,000/-. The claimants shall be entitled for the actual amount of Rs. 28,09,000/- and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 10. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the recomputed 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 $ourabh