1 CGHC010415132023 2026:CGHC:34722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2105 of 2023 1 - Smt. Manju Yadav W/o Late Khirod Yadav, Aged About 31 Years R/o. H.No. 282, Ward No. 10 Dipapara, Village Khemda, Post Basna Tahsil Basna District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Current Address Hemunagar Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Dimpal Yadav D/o. Late Khirod Yadav, Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Gaurdian Mother Smt. Manju Yadav W/o. Late Khirod Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o H.No. 282, Ward No. 10 Dipapara, Village Khemda, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Current Address Hemunagar Torwa, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chattisgarh. 3 - Satish Yadav S/o. Nishamani, Yadav, Aged About 58 Years R/o H.No. 282, Ward No. 10 Dipapara, Village Khemda, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Current Address Hemunagar Torwa, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chattisgarh. 4 - Bhanumati W/o. Satish Yadav Aged About 54 Years R/o H.No. 282, Ward No. 10 Dipapara, Village Khemda, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Current Address Hemunagar Torwa, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Lal Babu Sahu S/o. Motilal Sahu, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Driver, R/o. Village Kuteli, Tahsil And P.S. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.08.10 11:32:22 +0530 2 Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Bolero No. O.R. 05 A.R. 0549) 2 - David Baiga S/o. Shri Khrista Das, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Housing Board Colony, Simliguda, District Koraput Pin 764036, (Owner Of Vehicle Bolero No. O.R. 05 A.R. 0549) 3 - Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Rama Trade Center, 2nd Floor, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Bolero No. O.R. A.R. 05498) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sajal Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order 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 challenging the impugned award dated 02.11.2023, passed by 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur(CG), in Claim Case No.552/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.23,54,426/- as compensation for the death of Khirod Yadav, who died in a road accident that took place on 04.10.2019. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,030/-. It is contended that the said assessment is wholly inadequate and contrary to the evidence available on record. According to learned counsel, the deceased was 3 working as an accountant for various private establishments and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned award be modified by reassessing the income of the deceased on the basis of the evidence on record and, consequently, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sebati Nath & Ors. v. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3468. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 insurance company opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellants and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the award passed by the Tribunal is just & proper and does not require any enhancement. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, claimant Satish Yadav, the father of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was working as an accountant for a petrol pump, rice mills and other private establishments and was earning about Rs.40,000/- per month. In support of the said claim, Jagdish Sahu (AW-2), Advocate, stated that he had issued the certificate (Ex.P-26) and was paying the deceased Rs.5,000/- per month for maintaining his accounts. Bhushan Patel (AW-3) also deposed that he was paying the deceased Rs.5,000/- per month towards salary for accountancy work. Yogesh Agrawal (AW-4), proprietor of Santoshi Rice Mill, stated that the deceased was maintaining the accounts of the rice mill and was being paid Rs.5,000/- 4 per month. He also proved the certificate (Ex.P-4). Likewise, Tarachand Patel (AW-5), proprietor of M/s Laxmi Rice Mill, deposed that the deceased was engaged for accountancy work and was being paid Rs.5,000/- per month. 6. Further, the mark-sheet of B.Com. Part-I (Ex.P-7) establishes the educational qualification of the deceased and also shows that he had studied Accountancy as one of the subjects. The Tribunal has also accepted that the deceased was engaged in accountancy work; however, it assessed his monthly income at Rs.10,030/- by treating him as a skilled labourer. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sebati Nath & Ors. v. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3468, while considering the determination of the income of the deceased, observed in paragraph 8 as under: 8. We are inclined to interfere with the findings of the Courts below in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month as the same was not assessed correctly on the basis of the evidence on record. This Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav1, has held that “In the absence of documentary evidence on record, some guesswork is required to be done”. Also, in the case of Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn.2, this Court has held that: “13. It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability. This Court in Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC observed that: “22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to 1 (2022) 1 SCC 198 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455 5 calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.” The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., wherein it was observed that: “20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.” 8. In the light of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and upon consideration of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses and the documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the monthly income of the deceased deserves to be assessed at Rs.16,000/- instead of Rs.10,030/-. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.16,000/-, resulting in an annual income of Rs.1,92,000/-. 9. The deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident. There are 4 claimants i.e. the wife, one daughter and the parents of the deceased. 6 10. Considering the date of incident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the addition towards future prospects, the deduction towards personal expenses, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal and the amount awarded under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses are just, proper and in accordance with law. However, the claimants are held entitled to spousal/parental/filial consortium of Rs.40,000 each. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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, the compensation is recomputed as under:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income 10030x12 =120360 16,000 x 12 =1,92,000 2. Future prospects (+)40% (i.e.48144) = 168504 (+)40% (i.e. 76800) = 268800 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 42126) = 126378 (-)1/4(i.e. 67,200) = 201600 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 2148426 (x) 17 = 34,27,200 5. Funeral Expenses 15,000 15000 6. Loss of Estate 15,000 15000 7. spousal/ parental/filial consortium 1,76,000/- 1,60,000 (40,000 x 4) Total Rs. 23,54,426/- Rs. 36,17,200/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 of Rs.23,54,426/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 36,17,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.23,54,426/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.12,62,774/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 14. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced/additional 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 reside. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai