1 CGHC010155912023 2026:CGHC:40572 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 794 of 2023 1 - Smt. Chitra Mathur W/o Late Shri Manishankar Mathur, Aged About 33 Years R/o. Darripara, Ward No. 11, Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Narayan Prasad Mathur, S/o. Shri Faguram Mathur, Aged About 60 Years R/o. Darripara, Ward No. 11, Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Suruchi Bai Mathur W/o. Shri Narayan Prasad Mathur, Aged About 56 Years R/o. Darripara, Ward No. 11, Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Vasni Mathur D/o. Late Shri Manishankar Mathur, Aged About 14 Years R/o. Darripara, Ward No. 11, Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Appellant No. 4 To 6 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Smt. Chitra Mathur W/o. Late Shri Manishankar Mathur 5 - Ku. Asani Mathur, D/o. Late Shri Manishankar Mathur, Aged About 9 Years R/o. Darripara, Ward No. 11, Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Appellant No. 4 To 6 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.18 17:39:30 +0530 2 Appellant No. 1 Smt. Chitra Mathur W/o. Late Shri Manishankar Mathur 6 - Pushpraj Mathur, S/o. Late Shri Manishankar Mathur, Aged About 8 Years R/o. Darripara, Ward No. 11, Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Appellant No. 4 To 6 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Smt. Chitra Mathur W/o. Late Shri Manishankar Mathur ... Appellants versus 1 - Rajesh Sahu S/o. Shri Rajkumar Sahu Aged About 22 Years Chingrajpara, Sharda Chowk, Chantidih, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver And Owner Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 10 A.E. 8306) 2 - Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Registered And Head Office-Deyar House, 2nd Floor No. 2, N.S.G. Bose Road, Chennai 600001 (Bharat) Branch Manager, Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Hinduja Complex 1st Floor No. 22, Near Railway Line, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Service Officer, Through - Branch Manager, Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Near Vinayak Netralay, Main Road, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 10 A.E. 8306) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate 3 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (17.09.2026) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the Insurance Company, 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 21.11.2022, passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No.119/2021, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.20,25,936/- as compensation on account of death of Manishankar Mathur, who died in a road accident that took place on 16.03.2019. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at 8,710/- by treating ₹ him as a semi-skilled worker. It is contended that, considering the nature of the work undertaken by the deceased, he ought to have been treated as a skilled worker and his income should have been assessed accordingly. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the instant appeal may kindly be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be suitably enhanced in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Insurance Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellants and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the award passed by the Tribunal is just & proper and does not 4 require any enhancement. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Though it has been claimed by the claimants that the deceased was earning 20,000/- per month by running a ₹ grocery shop and doing agricultural work, no documentary evidence has been adduced on record to substantiate the said assertion. In the absence of any documentary evidence regarding his actual income or the nature of the work, and having regard to the fact that the accident occurred on 16.03.2019 and that, besides his wife, the deceased is survived by his aged parents and three minor children, his monthly income is reassessed at 10,000/-. ₹ 7. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years and a non-salaried person. There are total six claimants in this case. 8. 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, the deduction towards personal expenses, the multiplier applied and the amount granted under conventional heads by the Tribunal are just, proper and in accordance with law. 9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of 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 @ 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 Chuhru Ram & Ors3, the compensation is recomputed as under:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income 8,710x12 =104520 10,000 x12 =1,20,000 2. Future prospects (+)40% (i.e.41808) = 146328 (+)40% (i.e.48,000) = 1,68,000 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 36582) = 109746 (-)1/4 (i.e. 42,000) = 1,26,000 4. Multiplier (x) 16 =1755936 (x) 16 = 20,16,000 5. Funeral Expenses 15,000 15,000 6. Loss of Estate 15,000 15,000 7. Loss of consortium 2,40,000 (40,000 x 6) 2,40,000 (40,000 x 6) Total Rs. 20,25,936/- Rs. 22,86,000/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the compensation of Rs.20,25,936/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is hereby enhanced to Rs.22,86,000/-. Consequently, after adjusting the amount of Rs.20,25,936/- already awarded, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.2,60,064/-. The aforesaid 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 realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award stands modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 12. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced/additional amount” in this appeal as 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 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 reside. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai