1 CGHC010337112025 2026:CGHC:41280 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1703 of 2025 1 - Mrs. Sangita Kumari W/o Late Prabhu Jaiswal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Navgaon (Mohda), P.O.-Podi, P.S. And Tehsil Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Kavya Jaiswal D/o Late Prabhu Jaiswal Aged About 4 Years Minor Child Are Represented By Mother Sangita Kumari, R/o Village Navgaon (Mohda), P.O.-Podi, P.S. And Tehsil Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Aaliya Jaiswal D/o Late Prabhu Jaiswal Aged About 6 Years Age About 6 Months, Minor Child Represented By Mother Sangita Kumar, R/o Village Navgaon (Mohda), P.O.-Podi, P.S. And Tehsil Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Mrs. Kalta Bai Jaiswal W/o Shri Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Navgaon (Mohda), P.O.-Podi, P.S. And Tehsil Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Santosh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Dhaniram Jaiswal Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Navgaon (Mohda), P.O.-Podi, P.S. And Tehsil Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Prakash Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Aged SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.09.23 14:29:23 +0530 2 About 21 Years R/o Village Navgaon (Mohda), P.O.-Podi, P.S. And Tehsil Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - Sabir Ali S/o Mohammad Haroon Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Chaghaipur, P.S. Mandhata, District- Pratapgarh (U.P.) R/o Ratanpur, P.O. And Tehsil- Ratanpur, District Bilaspur C.G.( Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C G 10 R 1523) 2 - Chhattisgarh Power And Coal Benefication Limited, Plot No. 06, Sector Sirgitti Industrial Area, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G.( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C G 10 R 1523) 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office- L I C Building 1st Floor, Magarpara Road, District Bilaspur C.G.( Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (22.09.2026) 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 05.05.2025, passed in Claim Case No.156/2023 by learned 3 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.22,09,262/- as compensation for the death of Prabhu Jaiswal who was aged about 34 years and died in a road accident which took place on 02.02.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, however, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 9,280/- per month, which is on the lower side, and has also awarded a lesser amount towards medical expenses, which deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, the instant appeal may be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sebati Nath & Others Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912 and Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Others, (2022) 1 SCC 198. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 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 4 through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, it is true that the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 9,280/- per month. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, however, there is no documentary evidence available on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence on record and considering the date of accident as 02.02.2022, the income of Rs. 9,280/- assessed by the learned Tribunal as per the notification issued by the Office of Labour Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, prescribing minimum wages, is just and proper and calls for no interference. 6. The second argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal has granted a meager amount towards medical expenses. It is true that the claimants have filed medical bills from Ex. P-23 to Ex. P-46. The Claims Tribunal has only considered Exs. P-24, P-29, P-30, P-33, P-42 and P-43 and has awarded Rs. 14,414/- towards medical expenses. The remaining bills have not been considered by the Tribunal on the ground that they do not bear the signature of the authorized signatory. It is pertinent to mention that the date of accident is 02.02.2022 and the deceased died on 15.02.2022. The bills which were rejected by the learned Tribunal were also in continuation, in the name of the deceased, and were prior to his death. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 77,785/- towards medical expenses in place of Rs. 14,414/-, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 5 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. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 9,280 x 12 =1,11,360/- Rs. 9,280 x 12 =1,11,360/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 44,544) = 1,55,904/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 44,544) = 1,55,904/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 38976) = 1,16,928/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 38976) = 1,16,928/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = 18,70,848/- (x) 16 = 18,70,848/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 3,24,000/- Rs. 3,24,000/- (18000+18000+288 000) 6 Medical Expense 14,414 Rs. 77,785/- Total Rs. 22,09,262/- Rs. 22,72,633/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.22,09,262/- awarded by the Claims 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.22,72,633/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.22,09,262/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.63,371/-. 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 -Shubham