1 CGHC010453992024 2026:CGHC:37160 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 15 of 2025 1. Smt. Neha Piplva Wd/o Late Hitesh Aged About 30 Years R/o Kapil Nagar Sarkanda, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 2. Ansh Piplva, Janhavi Sahu S/o Late Hitesh Aged About 7 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt. Neha Piplva (Appellant No. 01), R/o Kapil Nagar Sarkanda, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 3. Kavyansh Piplva S/o Late Hitesh Aged About 5 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt. Neha Piplva (Appellant No. 01), R/o Kapil Nagar Sarkanda, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 4. Shyam Sundar S/o Late Prahlad Aged About 70 Years R/o Kapil Nagar Sarkanda, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 5. Shakuntala Piplva W/o Shyam Sundar Aged About 52 Years R/o Kapil Nagar Sarkanda, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 6. Chetan Piplva S/o Shyam Sundar Aged About 35 Years R/o Kapil Nagar Sarkanda, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Appellants versus 1. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur, C.G. (Insurer Of The Vehicle Capsule No. – C.G.12/a.R./9462). 2. Fool Singh S/o Ramcharan R/o Village- Chiraipani, Police Station- Podi, District- Korea, C.G. (Driver Of The Vehicle Capsule No. – C.G.12/a.R./9462). DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 3. Pal Transport Compay R/o T.P. Nagar, District- Korba, C.G. (Owner Of The Vehicle Capsule No. - C.G.12/a.R./9462) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. This is an miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’), assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the impugned award dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.1434/2022. 3. By the award impugned, against a claim of Rs.36,22,500/-, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.21,27,060/- in favour of the appellants/claimants on account of death of deceased/Hitesh Pipalva in an accident, which took place on 31.08.2022 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle ‘Capsule’ bearing Registration No.C.G.-12-AR-9462 driven by the respondent No.2/driver, owned by the respondent No.3/owner and insured with the respondent No.1/insurance company. 4. As per the pleadings made in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act by the appellants/claimants, inter alia pleaded that the appellant No.1 is the wife of the deceased, 3 appellants No.2 to 3 are children, appellants No.4 & 5 are parents and appellant No.6 is the brother of the deceased, who died in the said accident was aged about 38 years; and was working as regular employee of Prithu Mill and Machinery Stores, Janjgir Mod, Balaji Rice Mill Chawl Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. Thus, the above stated compensation was claimed. 5. Respondents No.2 & 3 remained ex parte before the learned Claims Tribunal and did not filed any written statement. 6. Respondent No.1/insurance company filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants. It was pleaded that the offending vehicle was driven without valid fitness permit and driving license of the driver, thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. It has also been pleaded that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of above brought pleadings and decided the same after appreciation of evidence available on record in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the above stated compensation by the impugned award, which led to filing of this appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages to Rs.9,540/- only. 4 The proprietor of the firm, in which the deceased was working, was examined and he has proved the salary certificate of the deceased, which would indicate that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.18,000/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in not placing the reliance upon the said document. Apart from this, he submits that the compensation on other admissible heads are also on the lower side, which requires suitable enhancement by this Court. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/insurance company supports the impugned award and submits that no other documents except the salary certificate and GST Registration of the firm was placed on record. No return, filed on behalf of the said firm to substantiate that salary of Rs.18,000/- was being paid to the deceased. The assessment of the learned Claims Tribunal is based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and it does not call for any interference by this Court and the same deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 11. The only question arose before this Court, as to whether the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just compensation and whether it requires suitable enhancement by this Court ? 12. As per the pleadings made in the claim application, deceased was working as a regular employee of said Prithu Mill and Machinery Stores and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. The proprietor of 5 that firm has been examined as AW-2, who stated that he is the proprietor of the firm and has a GST Registration of the firm, which is marked as Ex.P/18. He has exhibited the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.P/17, which indicates that the monthly income of the deceased was to Rs.18,000/- per month. In cross-examination, according to this witness, the deceased was working in the said firm for the last 3 years, as a manager and was paid Rs.18,000/- per month cash salary. In the cross-examination, he admits that Ex.P/17 (salary certificate), but how many persons are working in a firm is not mentioned. He further admits that he has not filed any documents relating to the income and expenditure of the firm. Though, he has denied that such document has not been filed, as there is no income of this firm. He also admits that Ex.P/17 (salary certificate) is not written by him, however, he himself stated that it is written according to his instructions and after reading it, he put his signature upon it. He admits that return of his firm is filed through channeled account, he also admits that he has not filed any voucher with regard to the per month payment to the deceased. However, he denied the suggestions in order to facilitate the higher compensation to the claimants, the false salary certificate has been prepared. 13. The claimant No.1 was examined as AW-1, who was the wife of the deceased has also stated that her husband was working with the said firm and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. 14. The learned Claims Tribunal has disbelieved the salary certificate holding that no other documents like Register and documents with 6 regard to the payment of employees has been filed, thus, while admitting to the fact that deceased was working in the firm, however, it is observed that working of the deceased in the said firm cannot be ruled out. However, on the basis of salary certificate only, Ex.P/17, the deceased was being paid Rs.18,000/- per month salary cannot be presumed. The learned Claims Tribunal treated the deceased to be an unskilled labour and on the basis of prevailing minimum wages on the date of incident and at the place of residence of the deceased, held his monthly income to Rs.9,540/-. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the salary certificate, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/insurance company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the salary certificate. 16. The learned Claims Tribunal has held that it cannot be ruled out that the deceased was working in the said firm. However, the Claims Tribunal held the deceased to be an unskilled labour. 17. The deceased was said to be aged about 37 years as per claim application, young widow, two minor children and parents were found to be dependent upon the income of the deceased. Argument for appellant No.6, who is the brother of the deceased may not be dependent upon the income of him, however, only 5 persons can severally be dependent upon the income of the deceased. Ofcourse, no other supporting documents like return, register appointment order and documents to suggest the payment of salary are not 7 placed on record, however, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal is with regard to that the deceased was working in the said firm. 18. Under these circumstances the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal that deceased was an unskilled labour does not appear to be based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Even if the salary of the deceased cannot be assessed on the basis of the salary certificate issued in light of the above stated facts, but it cannot be said to be that deceased was earning Rs.9,540/- being an unskilled labour. Particularly, looking to the large number of dependents depended upon the income of the deceased. 19. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and the evidence available on record; the nature of job; age of the deceased and; number of dependents upon him, it can be safely said that deceased was a salaried employee, his salary may not be Rs.18,000/-, but it can be assessed to Rs.15,000/-. Hence, this Court can safely assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.15,000/-, as this Court has to see the young widow aged about 30 years, minor children who are aged about 7 & 5 years respectively and old parents, who all have long life to live without the support, affection and income of the deceased. The deceased on the basis of evidence can be said to be a salaried employee. 20. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi 8 Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner :- Serial No. Particulars Amount(Rs.) 1 Annual Income (Rs.15,000 x 12) 1,80,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,80,000 x 50% Future Prospects = Rs.90,000; 1,80,000 + 90,000 = 2,70,000 2,70,000 3 Income after Deduction towards Personal Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.2,70,000 / 4 = Rs.67,500; 2,70,000 – 67,500 = Rs.2,02,500) 2,02,500 4 Loss of Dependency after applying Multiplier (Rs.2,02,500 x 15 = Rs.30,37,500) 30,37,500 5 Funeral Expenses 16,500 6 Loss of Estate 16,500 7 Consortium to wife 44,000 8 Filial and Parental Consortium (Rs.40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000) 1,60,000 Total Compensation = 32,74,500 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 21,27,060 Enhancement in Compensation = 11,47,440 21. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of 9 Rs.11,47,440/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the instant appeal, i.e., 20.12.2024 till its realisation of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.1/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each shall be deposited as fixed deposit in the names of appellants No.2 & 3 in a nationalized bank till attaining the age of majority; Rs.3,00,000/- shall be deposited as fixed deposit in the name of appellant No.1 in a nationalized bank for 3 years and; Rs.1,00,000/- each shall be disbursed in the account of appellants No. 4 & 5. Remaining amount shall be disbursed in the account of appellant No.1 through bank transactions / account payee cheque. 23. Accordingly, the instant appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is partly allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove. 24. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Deepti Jha