1 CGHC010348312023 2026:CGHC:38715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1737 of 2023 1 - The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lalganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Thana, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) Through In-Charge, T.P. Hub, T.P. Hub Office, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Above Canara Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin 495001................Insurance Company (Vehicle No. CG-05/ah/3050). ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Bharti Yadav W/o Late Shri Dharam Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Demar, Post Demar, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.). 2 - Ravina D/o Late Shri Dharam Singh Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Demar, Post Demar, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.). 3 - Bhushan S/o Late Shri Dharam Singh, Aged About 16 Years, Through His Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Bharti Yadav, W/o Late Shri Dharam Singh, Aged 43 Years, R/o Village Demar, Post Demar, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.). 4 - Vishwas Das S/o Dhaniram Manikpuri Aged About 46 Years R/o Bagdehi, Thana And Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari 5 - Yogendra Sinha S/o Dwarika Sinha Aged About 27 Years R/o Bazar Chowk, Ward No.9 Tarsiwan, Police Station Arjuni, Post And Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.09.08 17:57:27 +0530 2 01.09.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company, challenging the impugned award dated 07.08.2023 passed in Claim Case No.216/2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District-Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹16,55,480/- as compensation on account of death of Ghanshyam Yadav. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants, being the Respondents No. 1 to 3, mother, sister and brother of the deceased Ghanshyam Yadav, filed the claim petition seeking compensation for his death in a motor accident. On 20.07.2021, while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-05/AL/3866 towards Purana Bazar Chowk, Kurud, the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG- 05/AH/3050, driven by Vishwas Das, was being driven rashly and negligently and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was initially taken to Government Hospital, Kurud and thereafter referred to Christian Hospital, Dhamtari, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The deceased was unmarried. The accident was reported at Police Station Kurud, where Crime No. 333/2021 was registered against respondent No.4 and, after completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in fastened the liability upon the appellant/insurance company. It is submitted that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed on the higher side and also awarded the amount under the various conventional heads. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability upon 3 the appellant/insurance company to pay the amount of compensation, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified to the extent of illegality committed by the learned Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and the liability of payment of compensation has been rightly fastened upon the appellant/insurance company. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that Smt. Bharti Singh, mother of the deceased, was examined on behalf of the claimants in support of their claim. She also produced the final report submitted by the police, along with the relevant documents, which were exhibited as Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-8. From the said documents, it is evident that a charge-sheet was filed against Vishwas Das, Respondent No.4, who was the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants also examined Devendra Kumar Pradhan (AW-3) as an eyewitness. In his deposition, he stated that he had witnessed the accident and specifically attributed rash and negligent driving to the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, as per Ex. A-1, i.e., the final report, Devendra Kumar Pradhan is also shown as a prosecution witness, which lends corroboration to his version regarding the occurrence of the accident with the said offending vehicle. Significantly, neither the driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle, nor any witness on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, has been examined to rebut or controvert the aforesaid evidence. In the absence of any contrary evidence, this Court finds no justifiable ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the accident 4 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident in question. 7. In the case at hand, it is true that the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,800/-, whereas the same ought to have been assessed at Rs. 9,200/- per month, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, the amount awarded under the conventional heads also requires reconsideration. Therefore, the impugned award warrants modification to that extent. The learned Claims Tribunal, considering that the deceased was 21 years of age at the time of the accident and having regard to the number of claimants, added 40% towards future prospects to the income of the deceased and applied a multiplier of 18. The said determination is found to be just and proper. However, as the deceased was unmarried, the deduction towards his personal and living expenses ought to have been made at the rate of 1/2, instead of 1/3rd, as made by the learned Tribunal. Under the conventional heads, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 83,000/-, whereas the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,65,000/-. Accordingly, to the aforesaid extent, the impugned award warrants modification by re-assessing the monthly income of the deceased, making deduction of 1/2 towards his personal and living expenses, and re-assessing the amounts payable under the conventional heads. 8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court re-computes the compensation 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 as below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 7800 x 12 = 93,600/- Rs. 9200 x 12 = 1,10,400/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 37440) = 1,31,040/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 44,160) = 1,54,560/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 43,680) =87,360/- (-) 1/2 (i.e. 77,280) = 77,280/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 15,72,480/- (x) 18 = 13,91,040/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs.83,000/- (16,500+16,500+50, 000) Rs.1,65,000/- (16,500+16,500+1,32,000) Total Rs. 16,55,480/- Rs. 15,56,040/- 9. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.15,56,040/- instead of Rs. 16,55,480/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The claimants shall be entitled for the actual amount of Rs. 15,56,040/- and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 11. 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 Arpan