1 CGHC010029292023 2026:CGHC:41398 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 159 of 2023 1 - Awadh Lal Yadaw S/o Bhaiyalal Yadaw Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Risda, Tahsil And Police Station Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anmita Yadaw D/o Awadh Lal Yadaw, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Risda, Tahsil And Police Station Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Krishna Kumari Jaiswal D/o Late Jainarayan Jaiswal, R/o Anuppur Road, Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manedragarh, District Korea Now Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (Owner Of The Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 16A/2144) 2 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Managar, Division Office - 3rd Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Vypar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 16A/2144) 3 - Rjakumar Manjhi S/o Ramratan Manjhi R/o Sukhkhar, Dindauri, District Dindauri (M.P.) Other Address Through Smt. Krishna Kumari Jaiswal D/o Late Jainarayan Jaiswal Ra/o Anuppur Road,manedragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh. Now Manendragarh Chirmiri Bhartpur ... Respondent(s) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.25 11:19:45 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (23.09.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide impugned award dated 27.10.2022 passed in Claim Case No.816/2019, whereby a total sum of 13,80,080/- has been ₹ awarded on account of the death of Kamlesh Yadav, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in the motor accident that occurred on 12.06.2019. 2. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal held that although it was pleaded that the deceased was earning ₹20,000/- per month while working as a Class-IV employee in the Forest Department under the Government of Chhattisgarh, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the said assertion. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at 8,400/-, ₹ added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses, and applied the multiplier of 18. Accordingly, compensation was awarded under the following heads: S.N. Head Calculation 1 Loss of dependency 12,70,080 2 Loss of estate 15,000 3 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000 4 Loss of consortium 80,000 Total Awarded Amount Rs.13,80,080 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to grant the requisite enhancement of 10% in the amounts awarded under the conventional heads, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be suitably enhanced. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, as also the judgment of this Court in Mongara Bai Ghritlahre & another v. Suraj Banjare & others, passed on 02.09.2026 in MAC No.1420 of 2023. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2– Insurance Company submits that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care. 6. So far as the contention regarding enhancement of the amounts under the conventional heads is concerned, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, has prescribed the amounts under the conventional 4 heads with a stipulation for enhancement at the rate of 10% after every three years from the date of the judgment, i.e., 31.10.2017. In the present case, the accident occurred on 12.06.2019, i.e., within three years from 31.10.2017. Therefore, the question of enhancement of 10% in the amounts awarded under the conventional heads does not arise. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the said heads are, accordingly, found to be in conformity with the applicable legal position. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants do not advance their case, as the factual circumstances therein are distinguishable from those obtaining in the present case. 7. It is not in dispute that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was unmarried and aged about 23 years. Initially, there were three claimants, namely, the father, mother and sister of the deceased. However, during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, the mother of the deceased died. Thus, there are two claimants in the present case. 8. Considering the date of the accident, the assessment of income made by the Tribunal on the basis of the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled labourer is found to be just and proper, as there is no clinching or reliable evidence on record warranting any enhancement of the income so assessed. 9. Having regard to the date of the accident, the age of the deceased, the number of dependants and the evidence available on record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the assessment made by the Tribunal with regard to the income of the deceased, future prospects, deduction towards personal expenses, multiplier or the amounts awarded under the conventional heads. The compensation awarded by the 5 Tribunal is in accordance with the principles laid down by 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 @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3. 10. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference. 11. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130