1 CGHC010174002023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 810 of 2023 1 - Smt. Durgawati Yadav W/o Late Nilesh Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Halmukam, Gudiyari, Srinagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Suresh Yadav S/o Mangal Prasad Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Kharthuli, Tehsil Daundilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tulsi Bai Yadav W/o Suresh Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Kharthuli, Tehsil Daundilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nilima Yadav D/o Suresh Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Kharthuli, Tehsil Daundilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Kamlesh Kumar Patel S/o Sukhram R/o Rajnawagaon, Tehsil Bodla, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Motor Cycle No. C.G. 09 J.G. 1678). 2 - Satish Chandra Tiwari S/o Ganesh Prasad Tiwari R/o - Ward No. 06, Adarsh Nagar, Kawardha, Tehsil And District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Motor Cycle No. C.G. 09 J.G. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.09.22 10:38:49 +0530 2 1678). 3 - Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Address - First Floor, 106 And 107, Wall Fort, Ozone, Bilaspur Road, Near Fafadih, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Motor Cycle No. C.G. 09 J.G. 1678). --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Adv. On behalf of Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Ms. HK Khanuja, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (21.09.2026) 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 21.12.2022, passed in Claim Case No.196/2022 by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.18,65,520/- as compensation for the death of Nilesh Yadav who was aged about 27 years and died in a road accident which took place on 24.12.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a lesser amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side. The deceased was working 3 at Prabhat Graphics and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. She further submits that the owner of Prabhat Graphics, Mr. Prabhat Tamboli (AW-3), has been examined before the Tribunal and has admitted the same. Further, the Claims Tribunal has also awarded a lesser amount under other conventional heads, which deserves to be enhanced. The Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, whereas it ought to have been 1/4th, as the number of claimants is four. Therefore, the instant appeal may be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be 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. With regard to the income of the deceased, the pleading and evidence of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased Nilesh Yadav, aged about 27 years, was working at Prabhat Graphics doing printing work and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. In support of the claimants' case, Prabhat Tamboli (AW-3) was examined, who has produced Ex. P-9, which is the income certificate of the deceased. The Tribunal, however, discarding the same, has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,800/-. Prabhat Tamboli has produced his GST 4 Registration Certificate Ex. P-10, which is in the name of Prabhat Graphics and the same name has been pleaded before the Tribunal. Prabhat Tamboli has also produced Ex. P-11, which is a bunch of 24 pages of vouchers for the period from January 2021 to December 2021, showing payment made to deceased Nilesh every 15 days. However, Prabhat Tamboli has admitted in his cross-examination that for doing printing work, technical knowledge of computer is required. Nilesh Yadav did not possess any certificate of educational qualification regarding computer and flex printing. Even then, on a perusal of the pleadings and evidence on record, there remains no doubt that Nilesh was working in a printing press. Therefore, in this situation, considering the evidence available on record, the monthly income of deceased Nilesh is assessed at Rs. 12,000/-. 6. Furthermore, in the case at hand, it is true that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3 in place of 1/4 towards personal and living expense and in other conventional heads also, the Tribunal has granted only Rs.1,90,000 which ought to be 2,09,000/-, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 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:- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 1,05,600/- per annum Rs. 12000 x 12 = 1,44,000/- 2. Future prospect ----------- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 57,600) = 2,01,600/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 35200) = 70,400/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 50400) = 1,51,200/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 11,96,800/- (x) 17 = 25,70,400/- 5. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 478720) = 16,75,520/- ---------- 6. Other conventional heads Rs. 1,90,000/- Rs. 2,09,000/- (16500+16500+176 000) Total Rs. 18,65,520/- Rs. 27,79,400/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.18,65,520/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.27,79,400/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.18,65,520/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.9,13,880/-. 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 6 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 -Shubham