1 CGHC010220762024 2026:CGHC:41792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1351 of 2024 1 - Suraj Agrawal @ Sonu S/o Late Kishor Agrawal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Chhuipali, Post Singhoda, Thana Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) At Present R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur, Distt Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Niraj Agrawal S/o Naresh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 29 Years R/o Balagir Road, Dongri Pali, Thana Dongri Pali, Distt. Sonpur (Odisha) Possible Address C-401, Shiv Complex, Pandri, Thana Pandri, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Amit Shantilal Jeevani S/o Shantilal Aaucharbhai Jeewani Aged About 48 Years R/o Pradhan Tikra Dang Chauk, Near Sanskar International School Bargarh, Distt. Bargarh (Odisha) 3 - Branch Manager Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 2nd Floor, Shiv Mohan Bhavan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Samir Singh, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Prashant Shau, Advocate. For Other respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (25.09.2026) 1. Heard on admission. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.09.26 10:31:10 +0530 2 2. Admit. 3. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 20.11.2023, passed in Claim Case No.763/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.41,12,009/- as compensation for his injuries, who sustained permanent disability in a road accident which took place on 01.07.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a lesser amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,800/- per month, whereas it should have been Rs.9,200/- per month for the unskilled labourer at the date of the accident. Further, he submits that the appellant is unmarried and was 23 years old at the time of the accident, but the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of marriage prospects, which ought to be awarded at Rs. 3 lakhs, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Divya vs. The National Insurance Co. Limited and Another, reported in (2024) 12 SCC 436. As such, the instant appeal should be allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the 3 records with utmost circumspection. 7. In the present case, the income of the appellant was not substantiated by any documentary evidence. Therefore, the tribunal had assessed his notional income at 7,800/- per ₹ month. According to the guidelines issued by the Labour Department, the minimum wage for unskilled labour at the time of the accident (i.e., 01.07.2021) was 9,200/- per month. ₹ Therefore, it is appropriate to re-assess the monthly income of the appellant as 9,200/- instead of 7,800/-. ₹ ₹ 8. Further, in view of the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, it would be appropriate to calculate 40% future prospect in the monthly income of the injured appellant considering his age (23 years) i.e. Rs 3,680/-, the monthly income of the appellant comes to Rs. 12,880/- (9,200+3,680), thus, the annual income of the injured appellant comes to Rs. 1,54,560/- (12,880x12). 9. The Tribunal, on Exhibit P-126, the certificate of permanent disability issued by the concerned Medical Board to the extent of 80%, has assessed the permanent disability of the claimant regarding his whole body as 100%, as stated by Dr. M.A. Satpathy (AW-2), who has examined the claimant and stated that the appellant's left leg has been amputated at the thigh, the same has not been challenged. 10.The annual income of the appellant has been calculated at Rs. 1,54,560/-, the reduction in earning capacity is 100% i.e. Rs. 1,54,560/-. The age of the appellant was 23 years at the time of accident. In view of the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 by applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of income due to reduction in total earning capacity is Rs. 27,82,080/- (1,54,560/-x18). 11.So far as the contention with regard to the grant of compensation for loss of marriage prospects is concerned, Dr. 4 M.A. Satpathy (AW-2) has been examined on behalf of the appellant to prove his permanent disability. AW-2 has stated that the medical board examined the injured and found that he had undergone a left transfemoral amputation, for which a disability certificate was issued (Ex. P 126), which stated that the appellant had been issued an 80% disability certificate, and that he was not likely to recover. Based on his current condition, he would be unable to ride a motorcycle, climb stairs, or perform heavy lifting. 12.In the matter of Divya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 22 as under: “22. No amount whatsoever was granted by the High Court for loss of marriage prospects. Obviously, in kajal case2 this Court declined to interfere with fixation of Rs. 3 lakhs under that head by the Tribunal concerned. We find no reason to deny such an amount viz. Rs. 3 lakhs to the appellant for the loss of marriage prospects, taking into account her physical condition.” 13.Thus, in light of the aforesaid judgment, looking to the age and physical condition of the appellant, it is appropriate to grant Rs. 3 lakhs for loss of marriage prospects. 14.Accordingly, the total compensation amount is awarded as under:- S.N Heads Award by Tribunal Award by this Court 01 Towards 100% permanent disability Rs.23,58, 720/- Rs.27,82,080/- 02 Towards treatment and medical expenses Rs.15,54, 489/- Rs.15,54, 489/- 03 Towards attendant Rs.27,000/- Rs.27,000/- 04 Towards Nutritional food, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 1 (2024) 12 SCC 436 2 Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 5 05 Towards Physical and mental agony Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 06 Loss of income Rs.46,800/- Rs.46,800/- 07 Towards future treatment expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 08 Towards loss of marriage prospects Nil Rs. 3,00,000/- Total Rs. 41,12,009/- Rs. 48,35,369/- 15.Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 48,35,369/-. After deducting Rs. 41,12,009/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,23,360/-. 16.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 7,23,360/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the tribunal till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 17.The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. 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 H. L. Sahu