1 CGHC010358262023 2026:CGHC:34513 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1765 of 2023 1 - Sukhbai Dahariya Wd/o Late Narayan Prasad Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Charnitola, P.O. Phulwari, Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) (Claimant) 2 - Akildas Dahariya S/o Late Bhangu Das Aged About 76 Years R/o Village Charnitola, P.O. Phulwari, Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) (Claimant) ... Appellants versus 1 - Kamal Sahu S/o Munna Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Jotpur, Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle) (Defendant) 2 - Shyam Prajapati S/o Sunderlal Prajapati Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No.1, Lormi, Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle) (Defendant) 3 - Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited Through Insurance Company Branch Manager, Office Address- Regional SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.08.07 16:14:19 +0530 2 Branch Office, 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, Infront Of Lic, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle) (Defendant) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (06.08.2026) 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 25.01.2023, passed in Claim Case No.24/2021, passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (C.G.), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.49,32,655/- as compensation for the death of Narayan Prasad Dahariya who was aged about 56 years and died in a road accident which took place on 25.09.2020. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a lesser amount of compensation. The Claims Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 9, whereas the applicable multiplier ought to be 11. As on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 55 years, 2 months and 12 days. The Tribunal, relying on the Income Tax records and Aadhaar card showing DOB as 13.07.1965, has taken the age of the deceased as 55 years, 3 2 months and 12 days as on the date of accident i.e. 25.09.2020. However, placing him in the age group of 56-60 years, it has applied a multiplier of 9, whereas the deceased had not attained the age of 56 years. Therefore, he falls in the age group of 51-55 years, for which the applicable multiplier is 11. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company would submit 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. In the case at hand, it is true that the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 9, whereas the applicable multiplier ought to be 11. The Tribunal itself has recorded a finding that the deceased had not completed the age of 56 years. As per the morgue intimation (Ex. P-5A1), the age of the deceased was 55 years. Therefore, the deceased would fall in the age group of 51-55 years, for which the applicable multiplier is 11. To that extent, the impugned award needs modification. 6. 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 Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 7,04,732/- (annual income) Rs. 7,04,732/- (annual income) 2. Future prospect (+)15% (i.e. Rs. 105710) = 8,10,442/- (+)15% (i.e. Rs. 105710) = 8,10,442/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 270147) = 5,40,295 (-) 1/3 (i.e. 270147) = 5,40,295 4. Multiplier (x) 9 = 48,62,655/- (x) 11 = 59,43,245/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 70,000/- Total Rs. 49,32,655/- Rs. 60,13,245/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.49,32,655 /- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.60,13,245/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.49,32,655 /-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.10,80,590/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal before this Court i.e. 17.10.2023 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award including the order of pay and recover shall remain intact. 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 9. 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 -Shubhamss