1 CGHC010021162023 2026:CGHC:40202 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 111 of 2023 1. Ramchandra Ram S/o Jeetu Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Nayapara Geedam, Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2. Smt. Kaushlya Devi W/o Shri Ramchandra Ram Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Nayapara Geedam, Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. 3. Munna Ram S/o Shri Ramchandra Ram Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Nayapara Geedam, Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Sona D/o Shri Ramchandra Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.7, Geedam, Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. 5. Smt. Kamini D/o Shri Ramchandra Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No.1, Nayapara Geedam, Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Dharmendra Sethiya S/o Shyamlal Sethiya Aged About 31 Years R/o Aspatal Para, Chitlanka, Tahsil Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. Working Place Office Of Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.16 16:58:27 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Ambulance Vehicle No CG-18-C- 1413) 2. Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Geedam District - South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. (Visible Owner And Controller Of Ambulance Vehicle No. CG-18-C- 1413) 3. Chief Medical And Health Oficer, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Ambulance Vehicle No. CG-18-C-1413) 4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (15.09.2026) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the State, the matter was heard finally. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 09.11.2022 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No.23/2022, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹16,46,388/- as compensation on account of the death of Mukesh Ram, who died in a road accident that occurred on 14.01.2022. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was engaged in preparing food for patients at the Geedam Hospital campus and was earning ₹15,000/- per month. In addition thereto, he was also engaged in providing courier services through a stationery shop and was earning 5,000/- per month. It is, therefore, ₹ contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at 10,710/-. ₹ 4. Learned counsel further submits that, as per Ex. A-9 and Ex. A-10, the date of birth of the deceased was 23.12.1996, whereas the date of accident was 14.01.2022. Thus, on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and 22 days and had not completed 26 years of age. Therefore, his age ought to have been taken as 25 years for the purpose of applying the appropriate multiplier. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashikala & Others v. Gangalakshmamma & Another, (2015) 9 SCC 150. 5. It is further submitted that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also inadequate and deserves to be enhanced in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants/claimants and 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 call for any interference by this Court. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record of the case with circumspection. 8. From the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the claimants, it is evident that the deceased was educated up to Class XII. He was engaged in preparing food for patients at Geedam Hospital campus. In addition thereto, he was also engaged in providing courier services through a stationery shop. The claimants have placed on record Ex. A-6, i.e., the Certificate of Proficiency, in support of the skill and qualification of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal, having regard to the material available on record, treated the deceased as a skilled labourer and assessed his monthly income at 10,710/-. It has also come in the evidence of ₹ Ravish Surana, who was running the stationery shop, that he used to pay 5,000/- per month to the deceased for the ₹ work performed by him. 9. Considering the overall facts, the nature of work performed by the deceased, his educational qualification, his status as a skilled labourer and the evidence available on record regarding his income, this Court is of the considered opinion that the monthly income assessed by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is reassessed at 12,000/- per month ₹ , instead of 10,710/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. ₹ 10.So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, as per Ex.A-9 and Ex.A-10, his date of birth was 23.12.1996, whereas the date of accident was 14.01.2022. Thus, on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and 22 days and had not completed 26 years of age. 5 11.In Shashikala (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the age of the deceased for the purpose of determining the appropriate multiplier, has held that the completed years of age are to be taken into consideration. The relevant observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 16 reads as under: “16. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16-6-1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14-12-2006, the deceased was aged 45 years 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs 16,82,310 (Rs 1,20,165 × 14).” 12.In the present case, since the deceased had completed 25 years of age as on the date of the accident and had not completed 26 years, his age is required to be taken as 25 years, instead of 26 years. Consequently, the appropriate multiplier would be 18, instead of 17 applied by the Tribunal. 13.The deceased was an unmarried and non-salaried person. There were five claimants, namely, the parents and three brothers/sisters of the deceased. 14.Considering the date of the accident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the addition towards future prospects and the deduction towards personal expenses made by the Claims Tribunal are just and proper and do not warrant interference. However, the amount awarded towards loss of consortium requires reconsideration and enhancement in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6 15.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and 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, the compensation payable to the claimants is re- computed as under: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income 10,710x12=128520 12000 x 12 =1,44,000 2. Future prospects (+)40% (i.e.51408) = 179928 (+)40% (i.e. 57600) = 2,01,600 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 =89964 (-)1/2 = 1,00,800 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 1529388 (x) 18 = 18,14,400 5. Under conventional heads 117,000 2,53,000 (16,500 + 16,500 + 44,000 x 5) Total Rs. 16,46,388/- Rs. 20,67,400/- 16.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the compensation of ₹16,46,388/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 20,67,400/- ₹ . Thus, after deducting the amount of ₹16,46,388/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants shall be entitled to an additional/enhanced amount of 4,21,012/- ₹ . The additional/enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its actual realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered. 17.Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 18.The Registry is directed to communicate to the claimants, in writing, the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court in the present appeal over and above the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Such communication shall be made in Hindi (Devanagari script). For this purpose, the assistance of Para-Legal Volunteers may be availed with the coordination of the Secretary, Legal Services Authority of the concerned area where the claimants reside. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai