1 CGHC010331722026 2026:CGHC:38713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1953 of 2026 1 - Luxmi W/o Late Anirudh Aged About 22 Years (Occupation House Wife)- R/o Village Muktipara Fundurdihari, Police Station Gandhinagar Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. 2 - Mayank S/o Late Anirudh Aged About 1 Years Appellant No. 1 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Luxmi, All are R/o (Majhapara) Police Station And Tehsil Surajpur District Surguja -Present Address R/o Village Muktipara Fundihari, Police Station Gandhinagar Ambikapur District Surguja C. G. 3 - Lalmen Bai W/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 43 Years (Occupation House Wife) --R/o Village Muktipara Fundihari, Police Station Gandhinagar Ambikapur District Surguja C. G. 4 - Ashok Kumar S/o Late Karmu Ram Aged About 45 Years (Occupation Agriculture) --R/o Village Muktipara Fundihari, Police Station Gandhinagar Ambikapur District Surguja C. G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Suraj Kumar S/o Dudhnath Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Batra, Police Outpost Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur District Surajpur C. G. 2 - Keshav Prasad Rajwade S/o Girja Shankar Rajwade Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Batra, Police Outpost Karanji Police Station Bishrampur District Surajpur C.G. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.02 10:20:06 +0530 2 3 - Branch Manager Magma H D I General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, 1st Floor, Pujari, Chamber Block A-1 Dharmnagar Tagore Nagar Abhanpur Road Raipur District Raipur C. G. Pin 492001. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Poshan Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (01.09.2026) 1. Heard on admission. 2. 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 01.05.2026, passed by 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) in Claim Case No.216/2025, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.26,97,792/- as compensation for the death of Anirudh Kumar, who died in a road accident that took place on 09.08.2025. 3. Learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,916/-, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded compensation under various heads as under: S.N. Head Calculation 1 Loss of dependency 24,75,792 3 2 Loss of estate 15,000 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000 4 Loss of consortium (Rs.48,000 each to the four claimants) 1,92,000 Total Awarded Amount Rs.26,97,792 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,916/-, whereas the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by working as a driver. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned award be suitably modified by enhancing the amount of compensation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the entire record with due care and circumspection. 6. The accident occurred on 09.08.2025 and, at the relevant time, the deceased was aged about 25 years. Though it has been pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by working as a driver, no documentary or other cogent evidence has been adduced on record to substantiate the said assertion. In the absence of any reliable evidence establishing the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.10,916/- on the basis of the minimum wages prevailing on the date of the accident. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased by the Tribunal. 7. Thus, considering the date of the accident, the age of the deceased, the number of dependants, and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance 4 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 of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference. 8. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130