1 CGHC010050442024 2026:CGHC:41544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 302 of 2024 Mangal @ Mangli Baghel Wd/o Late Dhuduram Baghel Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. 66, Pujaripara, Village Chhapar Bhanpuri, P.S. Badanji, Post Chhapar Bhanpuri, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ganesh Baghel S/o Tularam Baghel Aged About 23 Years R/o Mundiguda, Village Gadiya, P.S. Lohandiguda, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle) 2 - Chandan Baghel S/o Anturam Baghel Aged About 26 Years R/o Mundiguda, Village Gadiya, P.S. Lohandiguda, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle) 3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- 2nd Floor, Building No. 9/1, Behind Khandelwal Motors, M.G. Road, Adjoining Treasure Island Mall, Indore (M.P.) (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. P. K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.25 11:29:13 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (24.09.2026) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Insurance Company, the matter was heard finally. 2. This appeal under Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Claim Case No.20/2022, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 14,30,800/- as compensation for ₹ the death of Tulsiram Baghel, who died in a road accident that took place on 20.06.2021. 3. While passing the impugned award, learned Tribunal directed ‘pay and recovery’, holding that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on account of the driver of the offending vehicle not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-, which, according to him, is even lower than the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also inadequate and deserves to be enhanced in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 3 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 opposes the submission made on behalf of the appellant and submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made hereinabove and perused the record with due circumspection. 7. Though it has been claimed by the claimant that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month through farming and labour, no documentary evidence in this regard has been brought on record. The accident occurred on 20.06.2021 and the minimum wages of even an unskilled labourer at that time was Rs.9,200/-. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.9,200/-. 8. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the deceased was unmarried and aged about 25 years. There is one claimant in the present case i.e. the mother of the deceased. 9. Considering the date of accident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the addition towards future prospects, deduction towards personal expenses and the multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal are just, proper and in accordance with law. However, the amounts awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the conventional heads are required to be suitably enhanced in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance 4 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, the compensation is recomputed as under:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income 9,000 × 12 = 1,08,000/- ₹ 9,200×12 = 1,10,400/- ₹ 2. Future Prospects (+) 40% (43,200)= 1,51,200/- ₹ (+) 40% (44,160) = 1,54,560/- ₹ 3. Deduction towards personal expenses (-) 1/2 (75,600)= 75,600/- ₹ (-) 1/2 (77,280) = 77,280/- ₹ 4. Multiplier (×) 18 = 13,60,800/- (×) 18 = 13,91,040/- 5. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 16,500/- ₹ 6. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 16,500/- ₹ 7. Filial Consortium 40,000/- 44,000/- ₹ Total ₹14,30,800/- 14,68,040/- ₹ 11.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation is enhanced to 14,68,040/- ₹ . Thus, after deducting the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled to an additional amount of 37,240/- ₹ . The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 12.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13.The Registry is directed to communicate to the appellant/claimant, in writing, the enhanced/additional amount awarded in the present appeal over and above the amount awarded by the concerned Claims Tribunal. Such communication shall be made in Hindi (Devanagari) language, and the assistance of Para-Legal Volunteers may be availed in coordination with the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority of the concerned area where the claimant resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge