1 CGHC010117082025 2026:CGHC:40431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 762 of 2025 1 - Shailendri Khandekar Wd/o Late Arjunlal Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No.- 03, Paraghat, Jairamnagar, Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yuvraj Khandekar S/o Late Arjunlal Aged About 12 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Appellant No. 01, Shailendri Khandekar, R/o Ward No.- 03, Paraghat, Jairamnagar, Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Srishti Khandekar D/o Late Arjunlal Aged About 9 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Appellant No. 01, Shailendri Khandekar, R/o Ward No.- 03, Paraghat, Jairamnagar, Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shanti Bai Wd/o Late Sukhsagar Aged About 72 Years R/o Ward No.- 03, Paraghat, Jairamnagar, Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Tarbej Alam S/o Ravyum Miyan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Sarima, Post- Sihar, Tahsil- Samri, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle No.- C.G.-04-E.A.-0216) 2 - New Royal Trailers Proprietor- Saiyad Ajhan Ali, Shop No. 02, Pagriya Complex, New Bus Stand, Pandari, Raipur, BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.17 10:14:43 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh, S/o Late Tia Sahu, R/o House No.- 599 599, Sector 05-A, Balco Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle No.- C.G.-04-E.A.-0216) 3 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Gurukripa Tower, Near I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle No.- C.G.-04-E.A.-0216) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (16.09.2026) 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Upon due consideration, I.A. No.01/2025 is allowed and the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 4. Heard on admission. 5. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), vide impugned award dated 30.11.2024 passed in Claim Case No.624/2021, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a 3 total sum of 20,34,336/- as compensation on account of the ₹ death of Arjun Khandekar, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 30.11.2020. 6. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal held that though it had been pleaded that the deceased was earning ₹18,000/- per month by working as a sanitation worker and labourer, no documentary evidence has been adduced on record to substantiate the said assertion. The Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹8,960/-, 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 18,06,336 2 Loss of estate 18,000 3 Funeral Expenses 18,000 4 Loss of consortium (Rs.48,000 each to the four claimants) 1,92,000 Total Awarded Amount Rs.20,34,336 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and, therefore, warrants suitable enhancement. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3– Insurance Company submits that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any further enhancement. 4 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and circumspection. 10. The accident occurred on 30.11.2020. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years. There are four claimants in the present case. 11. Thus, considering the date of accident, the age of the deceased, the number of dependants and the material available on record, the assessment made by the Claims Tribunal towards income, future prospects, personal expenses, multiplier and conventional heads does not call for any interference. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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. Hence, 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. 12. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed at admission stage. 13. 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