1 CGHC010184432023 2026:CGHC:40636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 893 of 2023 1 - Smt. Babita Rathore Wd/ Late Budeshwar Rathore, Aged About 25 Years, All The R/o. Khaspara, Village Khadka Post Jamgaon, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Khemeshwari D/o. Late Budeshwar Rathore, Aged About 3 Years, All The R/o. Khaspara, Village Khadka Post Jamgaon, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Neha D/o. Late Budeshwar Rathore, Aged About 5 Years, All The R/o. Khaspara, Village Khadka Post Jamgaon, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4 - Lakshya Rathore, S/o. Late Budeshwar Rathore, Aged About 2 Years, Claimant No. 2 To 4 Are Minor Through Claimant No. 1 Smt. Babita Rathore (Mother) All The R/o. Khaspara, Village Khadka Post Jamgaon, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Munni Bai Rathore, W/o. Mannram Rathore, Aged About 47 Years, All The R/o. Khaspara, Village Khadka Post Jamgaon, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 6 - Mannaram Rathore, S/o. Ganpat Rathore, Aged About 50 Years All The R/o. Khaspara, Village Khadka Post Jamgaon, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Bipendra Sethiya S/o. Aaduram Sethia Aged About 27 Years R/o. Village Taragaon, Badepara, P.S. Bhanpuri District Bastar Chhattisgarh – Driver. 2 - Duryodhan Pandey, S/o. Ramdhani Pandey, Aged About 34 Years, R/o. Village Kamela, Post Badekanera, P.S. Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh – Owner. 3 - The Future General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office - 2nd Floor, Malay Heights, Mahadev Ghat SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.18 13:45:06 +0530 2 Road, Sundar Nagar, Near R.B.I, District Raipur Chhattisgarh -- Insurance Co. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None. For Respondents No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (17.09.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 17.01.2023, passed in Claim Case No. 36/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.28,40,400/- as compensation for the death of Budeshwar, who died in a road accident which took place on 02.12.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding lesser compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month, whereas the same ought to have been taken as Rs. 30,000/- per month, as the deceased owned 08 acres of agricultural land and was paying an EMI of Rs. 15,000/- per month for a tractor registered in his name. It is further contended that there are total 06 claimants and, except for the father of the deceased, all the other claimants are women and minor children, who are not capable of cultivating the 08 acres of agricultural land and operating the tractor. It is further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded lesser amounts under the conventional heads. It is, therefore, prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation 3 awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company would submit that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly awarded the compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the deceased’s wife, Smt. Babita Rathore, was examined on behalf of the Claimants. In support of the claim application, she produced Exhibit-A/12-C, which is a first page of the Land Record of Rights (Bhu-Adhikar Pustika). The said document merely indicates that the agricultural land in question is recorded in the name of Mannaram (father of deceased) in Village Khadka; however, it does not disclose the area or extent of the said land. Exhibit-A/11-C indicates that a tractor intended for agricultural purposes was registered in the name of the deceased, Budheshwar, and that the registration pertains to the year 2019. Exhibit-A/13 is a document of IndusInd Bank. However, the said document appears to be merely a normal paper document without any seal or endorsement of the bank. Further, it is not clear from the said document as to the purpose for which it was issued. Although the name of Mannaram is mentioned therein as the nominee, there is no clear disclosure as to the vehicle in respect of which the loan was obtained, the person who had availed the said loan, or the amount of the monthly instalment payable towards the loan. In view of the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that the tractor stands registered in the name of the deceased. The deceased was a 27- year-old young man who left behind his wife, three minor children, and his parents. He was the principal breadwinner of 4 the family and also owned a tractor used for agricultural purposes. In view of these circumstances, it would be just and reasonable to assess his monthly income at 16,000/- instead ₹ of 12,000/- per month. ₹ 6. Further, considering that the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of the accident and having regard to the number of dependants/claimants, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly added 40% towards future prospects to the income of the deceased, deducted one-fourth (1/4th) of his income towards his personal and living expenses, and applied the multiplier of 17. The said assessment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is found to be just and proper and does not warrant any interference. However, under the conventional heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-. The claimants, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, are entitled to a 10% enhancement over the conventional amounts prescribed therein. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,97,000/- under the conventional heads. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned award warrants modification, and the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is liable to be enhanced accordingly. 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 Ram & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. Heads Compensation Compensation 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 No. awarded by the Tribunal awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 12,000 x 12 = 1,44,000/- Rs. 16,000 x 12 = 1,92,000/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 57,600) = 2,01,600/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 76,800) = 2,68,800/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 50,400) = 1,51,200/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 67,200) = 2,01,600/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 25,70,400/- (x) 17 = 34,27,200/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 2,70,000/- (15,000+15,000+ 2,40,000) Rs. 2,97,000/- (16,500+16,500+2,64 ,000) Total Rs. 28,40,400/- Rs. 37,24,200/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.28,40,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.37,24,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.28,40,400/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 8,83,800/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from 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, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 10. 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 $ourabh