1 CGHC010199452026 2026:CGHC:41397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1262 of 2026 1 - Sarswati Bai W/o Late Basant Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Chodha (Basti), Post Office Nonbirra, Police Station Hardibazar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 1). 2 - Anil Kumar Sarute S/o Late Basant Ram, Aged About 17 Years, (Minor), Through Mother Sarswati Bai, W/o Late Basant Ram, R/o Village Chodha (Basti), Post Office Nonbirra, Police Station Hardibazar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No.2). 3 - Ku. Divya D/o Late Basant Ram, Aged About 14 Years, (Minor),through Mother Sarswati Bai W/o Late Basant Ram, R/o Village Chodha (Basti), Post Office Nonbirra, Police Station Hardibazar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 3). ... Appellants versus 1 - Amlesh Pandey S/o Harishankar Pandey R/o Subhash Nagar Deepka, Ward No. 08 Dipka, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle (Car) Bearing No.C. G. 10 X 8883). 2 - Ritesh Kumar Singh S/o Shyam Bihari Singh R/o Jyoti Nagar Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Ward No. 02 Dipka, Tehsil Dipka, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle (Car) Bearing No. C. G. 10 X 8883). 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Near Kosabadi Chowk, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Hardik Jaiswal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate. For other Respondents : None. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.24 10:17:20 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (23.09.2026) 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 14.01.2026, passed in Claim Case No. 87/2024, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.9,64,116/- as compensation for the death of Basant Ram, who died in a road accident which took place on 04.07.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,060/- per month, whereas it ought to have been taken at Rs. 10,380/- per month in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. It is, therefore, prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation 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. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,060/-. However, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Government of 3 Chhattisgarh, applicable at the relevant time, the monthly income of the deceased ought to be taken as Rs. 10,380/-. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal, considering that the deceased was aged about 53 years at the time of accident and having regard to the number of claimants, has added 10% towards future prospects to the income of the deceased, deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of '11', which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. Under the conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-, which is also found to be just and proper. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned award warrants modification by re-assessing the monthly income of the deceased. 6. 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. No. Heads Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 10,380 x 12 = 1,24,560/- 2. Future prospect (+)10% (i.e. Rs. 12,456) = 1,37,016/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 45,672) = 91,344/- 4. Multiplier (x) 11 = 10,04,784/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 1,80,000/- (16,500+16,500+1,76000) Total Rs. 11,84,784/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 Rs.9,64,116/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.11,84,784/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.9,60,208/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,20,668/-. 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. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 9. 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