1 CGHC010016552026 2026:CGHC:36089 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 258 of 2026 1 - Shubhagini Nag W/o Late Kalinga Manjhi, Aged About 32 Years, Permanent R/o Village- Kansada, District Bargarh, Odisha- 766050, Presently Residing At Pathridih, Near Sahu Kirana Store, Police Station Urla, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Vaishnavi Manjhi D/o Late Kalinga Manjhi, Aged About 11 Months, (Represented Through Her Mother Namely Smt. Shubhagini Nag) Permanent R/o Village- Kansada, District Bargarh, Odisha- 766050, Presently Residing At Pathridih, Near Sahu Kirana Store, Police Station Urla, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Nabin Manjhi, S/o Rangdhar Manjhi, Aged About 45 Years, Permanent R/o Village- Kansada, District Bargarh, Odisha- 766050, Presently Residing At Pathridih, Near Sahu Kirana Store, Police Station Urla, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Labati Manjhi, W/o Shri Nabin Manjhi, Aged About 40 Years, Permanent R/o Village- Kansada, District Bargarh, Odisha- 766050, Presently Residing At Pathridih, Near Sahu Kirana Store, Police Station Urla, District Raipur C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - Lalji Kushawaha S/o Shri Pawan Kushwaha, Aged About 22 Years R/o Belbahar Tola, Poprol, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G., Present Address- Transport Nagar, Bhilai, Hathkhoj, Police Station Bhilai-3, District Durg C.G.(Driver Of Vehicle CG 07 BE 9855). 2 - Smt. Rajvinder Saini, W/o Shri Jaswant Singh, R/o House No. A- 28, Amrapali Vananchal City, Industrial Area, Bhilai, District Durg C.G. (Owner Of Vehicle No. CG-07-BE-9855). 3 - The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Division Office- I, First Floor, Tank Business SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.08.14 10:20:44 +0530 2 Tower, Above Karnataka Bank, Fafadih Chowk, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. (Insurer Of Vehicle CG-07-BE-9855). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Gunjan Rani Agarwal, Advocate For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate along with Ms. Mansi Bandey, Advocate. For Other Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (13.08.2026) 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 22.11.2025, passed in Claim Case No. 390/2020, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.17,05,980/- as compensation for the death of Kalinga Manjhi, who died in a road accident which took place on 15.10.2020. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law as well as on facts in awarding lesser compensation to the appellants. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,900/-, without properly appreciating the evidence brought on record by the appellants. It is further submitted that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was working as a labourer under contractor Arvind Singh and was earning Rs. 17,000/- per month. In support of the aforesaid contention, Arvind Singh was examined as AW-2, who has specifically deposed regarding the employment and income of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that the documentary evidence duly proved by 3 Arvind Singh (AW-2) also substantiates the income claimed by the appellants. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs. 17,000/- instead of Rs. 6,900/-. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be suitably enhanced by reassessing the income of the deceased in accordance with the evidence available on record. It is, therefore, prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits 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. 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. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that Arvind Singh has been examined on behalf of the claimants as AW-2. In his deposition, he has stated that he had been engaged in the work of supplying labour to Maruti Nandan Architecture Private Limited since the year 2019 and that the deceased, namely Kalinga Manjhi, had been working under him since 2019. In support of the aforesaid statement, salary slips of the deceased for the period from May 2020 to August 2020 have been produced and exhibited as Ex.P/6 to Ex.P/9. The said salary slips reflect varying monthly earnings, with the minimum salary being Rs. 6,495/- and the maximum being Rs. 12,180/-. However, no appointment letter of the deceased or any other document relating to his employment or engagement has been produced or proved by AW-2 in support of his claim that the 4 deceased was earning Rs. 17,000/- per month. 6. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,900/- as notional income. However, in the opinion of this Court, in the absence of sufficient material on record to establish the actual income of the deceased, and having regard to the statement of Arvind Singh (AW-2) as well as the documents produced and proved by him in support thereof, the income of the deceased deserves to be reassessed. Keeping in view the nature of employment of the deceased and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sebati Nath & Ors. v. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. 1 and Meena Pawaia & Ors. v. Ashraf Ali & Ors. 2 , this Court is of the considered view that the monthly income of the deceased is appropriately assessed at Rs. 10,390/- by treating him as a skilled labourer. Further, considering that the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of the accident, the learned Claims Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects to his income, thereafter deducted one-fourth of the income towards his personal and living expenses, and applied a multiplier of 17. The aforesaid assessment is found to be just and proper. Under the conventional heads, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,28,000/-, whereas the amount payable under the said heads ought to have been Rs. 2,09,000/-. 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 1 (2025) SCC Online SC 3468 2 (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1083 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 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. 6,900 x 12 = 82,800/- Rs. 10,390 x 12 = 1,24,680/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 33,120) = 1,15,920/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 49,872) = 1,74,552/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 28,980) = 86,940/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 43,638) = 1,30,914/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 14,77,980/- (x) 17 = 22,25,538/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 2,28,000/- (18,000+8,000+ 1,92,000) Rs. 2,09,000/- (16,500+16,500+1,76 ,000) Total Rs. 17,05,980/- Rs. 24,34,538/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.17,05,980/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.24,34,538/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.17,05,980/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.7,28,558/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award 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 enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 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