1 CGHC010276032020 2026:CGHC:36975 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 33 of 2021 1 - Smt. Priya Pandey Wd/o Late Surendra Pandey Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Karaihapara, Ratanpur Tah. Kota, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Monisha Pandey D/o Latte Surendra Pandey Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Priya Pandey, R/o Village Karaihapara, Ratanpur Tah. Kota, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Hirendra Pandey S/o Late Surendra Pandey Aged About 5 Years Age 05 Months, Minor Through Guardian Mother Priya Pandey, R/o Village Karaihapara, Ratanpur Tah. Kota, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Chandrakanta Pandey Wd/o Late Jwala Prasad Pandey Aged About 55 Years R/o, Village Karaihapara, Ratanpur Tah. Kota, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Arun Paliwal S/o Narayan Paliwal Aged About 51 Years R/o Vilalge Ratanpur, Mohalla Sandhipara, Ward No. 7, Thana Ratanpur Tahsil Kota District Bilspur, Chhattisgarh.(owner of vehicle Metador No.CG-10- C-7099) 2 - Rohni Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad Patel R/o Village Ratanpur Mohalla Sandhipara, Ward No. 7 Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Diriver Of Vehicle Metador No. C.G. 10-C/7099) 2 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... ...(Insurer Of Vehicle Metador No. C.G. 10-C/7099). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (18.08.2026) 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 09.09.2019, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.599/2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.28,35,300/- as compensation for the death of Late Surendra Pandey, who died in a road accident which took place on 17.12.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed error of law in assessing the monthly income of the deceased. The deceased at the relevant time was plying taxi after getting it financed from the Bank and thus earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month, but the learned Claims Tribunal only accessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per month and Rs.1,80,000/- per annum. Learned counsel has contended that the deceased left behind four (04) dependents and, therefore, in view of the number of dependents, a deduction of 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses ought to have been made, but it has deducted 1/3rd 3 towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, thus, the deduction ought to be modified from 1/3rd to 1/4th. He further submits that under the conventional heads also the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably. 3. Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the impugned award. 4. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company submits that he has filed cross-appeal challenging the monthly income of the deceased, however, he does not want to press the cross-appeal and has duly assisted the Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondents, perused the record of the Tribunal, including award impugned. 6. In the case at hand, the learned Tribunal has indeed taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- per month taking into consideration that the deceased had financed vehicle, used to pay installment and born the fuel expenses etc. Considering that the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of accident and claimants (4) were dependent on him, in absence of any clinching and reliable evidence, has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per month. Given that the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of the accident, an addition of 40% towards future prospects and multiplied of 16 is warranted. Furthermore, as the deceased was married and left behind 04 dependents (his wife, two children and mother), a 1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses ought to have been taken but the learned Claims Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, which in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, needs to be modified. Accordingly, 1/4th of the income of the 4 deceased is deducted towards his personal and living expenses for the purpose of computation of compensation. Therefore, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 7. The learned claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 70,000/- under other conventional heads in favour of claimants, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not found proper and needs to be enhanced suitably in the interest of justice. 8. 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 & 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. 15,000x12 = 1,80,000/- Rs. 15,000x12 = 1,80,000/- 2 Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 72,000) = 2,52,000/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 72,000) = 2,52,000/- 3 Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 84,000) = 1,68,000/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 63,000/-) = 1,89,000/- 4 Multiplier (x) 16 = 26,88,000/- (x) 16 = 30,24,000/- 5 Towards Loss of consortium to all the 4 claimants Rs.40,000/- Rs. 40,000x4 = Rs. 1,60,000/- 6 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2(2009) 6 SCC 121 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 5 7 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 8. Towards medical expenses during treatment Rs.77,300/- Rs.77,300/- Total Rs. 28,35,300/- Rs. 32,91,300/- 9. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. Rs.32,91,300/-. After deducting Rs.28,35,300/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 4,56,000/-. 10. In the result, this Court pass the following order. (i) The appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants shall be entitled to get Rs. 4,56,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. (ii) The cross appeal filed by the respondent No.3-Insurance Company is dismissed as not pressed. (ii) 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 Pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.08.21 11:27:13 +0530