1 CGHC010404302024 2026:CGHC:37621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2179 of 2024 1 - Tiharu Ram Yadav S/o Tirath Ram Yadav, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Gatmadhawa, Thana-Gidhori, And District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2 - Basant Kumari Yadav W/o Tiharu Ram Yadav, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Gatmadhawa, Thana-Gidhori, And District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Dilip Kaivartya S/o Shivnarayan Kaivartya Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Ward No. 3, Shivrinarayan, Thana - Shivrinarayan, District Janjgeer Champa, Chhattisgrh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 11 /A.L./4886) 2 - Prasahnt Sharma S/o Bhuvan Lal Sharma Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Ward No. 7, Bhogapara, Thana - Shivrinarayan, District Janjgeer Champa, Chhattisgrh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 11 /A.L./4886) 3 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Kirti Complex, Near Of Bank Of India, Rajendra Nagar, Chowk, Thana Civil Line, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgrh, (Insurance Company Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 11 /A.L./4886) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 3 : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (21.08.2026) 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 23.08.2024, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.1173/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.13,74,283/- (wrongly calculated at Rs. 14,24,283/-) as compensation for the death of Late Triloki Yadav, who died in a road accident which took place on 25.02.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits 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 working as skilled mechanic in garage and earning Rs.22,000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal only assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,855/- in view of Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour, which is not justified. He further submits that under the conventional heads also the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company, however, opposing the impugned award submits that the Insurance Company has filed cross-objection with regard to error of Rs.50,000/- in computation of award amount. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.3, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the present case, the appellants/claimants pleaded before the Claims Tribunal that the deceased Triloki Yadav was skilled mechanic in garage and earning Rs.22,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate this claim. The learned Tribunal has indeed taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,855/- for unskilled labourer on the date of accident. Considering the deceased as unskilled labourer, it would proper to take his monthly income of Rs.9,280/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour. Therefore, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 6. The learned claims Tribunal, considering the nature of job of deceased (self employed) at the time of accident 25.02.2022, the fact that he was unmarried aged 17 years, and number of dependents (02), has rightly taken future prospect of 40%, deducted 1/2nd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 18 respectively, along with Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.96,000/- (48,000x2) towards consortium and Rs.54,607/- towards medical expenses, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and proper. 7. 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 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2(2009) 6 SCC 121 4 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. 7855x12 = 94,260/- Rs. 9280x12 = 1,11,360/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 37,704) = 1,31,964/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 44,544) = 1,55,904/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 (i.e.65,982 ) = 65,982/- (-) 1/2 (i.e. 77,952) = 77,952/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 11,87,676/- (x) 18 = 14,03,136/- 5 Towards Loss of consortium to all 02 claimants Rs. 96,000/- Rs. 48,000 x 2 = Rs.96,000/- 6. Towards Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- 7. Towards funeral exepenses Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- 9. Towards Medical Expenses Rs.54,607/- Rs.54,607/- Total Rs. 13,74,283/- (wrongly calculated compensation amount at Rs.14,24,283/- Rs. 15,89,743/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.13,74,283/- (wrongly calculated at Rs.14,24,283/-) awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,89,743/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.13,74,283/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,15,460/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 5 from the date of filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. In the result, this Court pass the following order.:- (i) The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. (ii) The cross-appeal filed by the Insurance Company is disposed of. (iii) 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: 2026.08.25 10:37:24 +0530