1 CGHC010405262025 2026:CGHC:34769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2058 of 2025 1 - Anita Bai Yadaw S/o Late Makhan Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Batari, Nehruward, Ward No. - 18, Yadaw Mohalla, Dipka, Police Station - Dipka, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Raunak Yadaw S/o Late Makhan Lal Aged About 5 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Appellant No. 01, Anita Bai Yadaw, R/o Village - Batari, Nehruward, Ward No. - 18, Yadaw Mohalla, Dipka, Police Station - Dipka, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Niya Yadaw D/o Late Makhan Lal Aged About 2 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Appellant No. 01, Anita Bai Yadaw, R/o Village - Batari, Nehruward, Ward No. - 18, Yadaw Mohalla, Dipka, Police Station - Dipka, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Faguram Yadaw S/o Late Ratanlal Aged About 61 Years R/o Village - Batari, Nehruward, Ward No. - 18, Yadaw Mohalla, Dipka, Police Station - Dipka, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Jankunwar Yadaw W/o Faguram Yadaw Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Batari, Nehruward, Ward No. - 18, Yadaw Mohalla, Dipka, Police Station - Dipka, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Gena Singh R/o Ward No. - 02, Shahid Bhagat Singh, Jyoti Nagar, Dipka, Police Station - Dipka, District - Korba Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-12 S-5726) 2 - M/s Suryamukhi Singh S/o Amarjeet Singh, R/o House No. B-30, Vikas Nagar, Kusmunda, Police Station - Kusmunda, District - Korba Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-12 S-5726) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, 1st Floor, Rama Trade Center, In Front of Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur, Police Station - City Kotwali, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-12 S-5726) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.08.12 12:44:37 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.3 Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (07.08.2026) 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 24.02.2025, passed in M.A.C.T No.1129/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,22,91,490/- as compensation for the death of Late Makhan Lal, who died in a road accident which took place on 26.02.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellants/Claimants submitted that the deceased was a salaried employee of S.E.C.L and annual income of the deceased has been taken by the learned Tribunal on the basis of Form 16 (Ex.P-18 & 19) as Rs.6,68,805/-, which is erroneous, as the said Form pertains to the year 2018-2019 & 2019-2020, whereas the accident in question occurred in February, 2021. It is further submitted that the salary slip for the month of February, 2021 (Ex.P- 16), produced by Goverdhan Prasad Sahu, clearly reflects the gross salary of the deceased as Rs.79,274/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs.79,274/- instead of the income taken by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the Post-Mortem Report, the age of the deceased was approximately 28 years at the time of the accident. However, the learned Tribunal, relying upon the age mentioned in the Service Book, has assessed the age of the deceased as 34 years, which is erroneous. It is, therefore, submitted that the appropriate multiplier applicable to the deceased, considering his actual age, be adopted and the compensation be recalculated accordingly. Consequently, the learned Tribunal failed to award a just, proper, and reasonable amount of compensation in accordance with settled legal principles. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the compensation suitably enhanced. 3 3. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company supported the award impugned and submitted that the award impugned is just and proper on the basis of evidence. He further submits that the Tribunal, on the basis of the Service Book proved by Goverdhan Prasad Sahu, has determined the deceased’s date of birth as 29.09.1986. Accordingly, the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 34 years, and therefore, the multiplier of 16 has rightly been applied. 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. Regarding the income of the deceased, Makhan Lal, Office Superintendent Govardhan Prasad Sahu (A.W.-3) from SECL, Gevra Project, District Korba, was examined on behalf of the claimants, who is a material witness. He has deposed that the deceased, Makhan Lal, was employed in the post of Category-1 at the said Gevra Project, having been appointed on 27/06/2014. His date of birth recorded in the service book is 29/09/1986. His Form-16 for the Financial Year 2018–19 is Exhibit P-18, for 2019–20 is Exhibit P-19, and for 2020– 21 is Exhibit P-20. The Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased at 6,68,805/- on the basis of Exhibit P-19. ₹ 6. It has been argued on behalf of the claimants that since the date of the accident is 26/02/2021, the gross salary of 79,274/- as per the ₹ pay slip submitted for that month as Exhibit P-16 should be accepted as the monthly income. However, it is noteworthy that Govardhan Prasad Sahu, in paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, has admitted that the leave encashment amount of 24,575/- shown from Part A to ₹ A as per the pay slip Exhibit P-16 is not received every month, and that amount was also included in the gross salary. That is to say, if the leave encashment of 24,575/-, which is not received monthly, is ₹ deducted from the gross salary of 79,274/-, the salary of the ₹ deceased for the month of February 2021 comes to 54,699/-. ₹ Applying a multiplier of 12 to this, the annual salary comes to ₹6,56,388/-, which is less than the annual income of 6,68,805/- ₹ determined by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, it is not found proper to make any reduction or enhancement in the annual income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at 6,68,805/-. ₹ 4 7. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased at 6,68,805/- based on ₹ Form-16 (Ex. P-19) for the Financial Year 2019–2020. Considering that the deceased was a salaried employee aged 34 years at the time of the accident, an addition of 50% was made towards future prospects, and a multiplier of 16 was applied. Furthermore, given that there are 5 dependents, 1/4th was deducted towards personal and living expenses. Additionally, a sum of 2,53,000/- was awarded ₹ under the conventional heads. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs. 1,22,91,490/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 8. Considering the date of the accident, the age of the deceased, Makhan Lal, and the number of dependents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal is just, proper, and in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference. 9. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu