1 CGHC010025372023 2026:CGHC:42214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 130 of 2023 1 - Smt. Reena Yadav W/o Late Jayprakash Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No.24, Santoshi Para, Camp-2, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Claimant). 2 - Ku. Sakshi Yadav D/o Late Jayprakash Yadav, Aged About 5 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Reena Yadav, R/o Ward No.24, Santoshi Para, Camp-2, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Claimant). 3 - Hariom Yadav S/o Late Jayprakash Yadav, Aged About 2 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Reena Yadav, R/o Ward No.24, Santoshi Para, Camp-2, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Claimant). 4 - Smt. Kismati Davi W/o Rampreet Yadav, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No.24, Santoshi Para, Camp-2, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Claimant). 5 - Rampreet Yadav S/o Late Bhaddar Yadav, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ward No.24, Santoshi Para, Camp-2, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Claimant). 6 - Ku. Pooja Yadav D/o Rampreet Yadav, Aged About 17 Years, 8 Months, Through Natural Guardian Father Rampreet Yadav, R/o Ward No.24, Santoshi Para, Camp-2, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Claimant). ... Appellants versus 1 - R. Tarun Soni S/o M. Raju Aged About 34 Years R/o Hig-2363, M.P. Housing Board, Jamul, Ward No.16, Near Saraswati English Medium School, Bhilai, Police Station Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Driver Of Car No. Cg-07 Aw-9977) 2 - M. Raju S/o Murgan Madurai Raju R/o Hig-2363, M.P. Housing Board, Jamul, Ward No.16, Near Saraswati English Medium School, SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.29 10:33:48 +0530 2 Bhilai, Police Station Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Owner Of Car No. CG-07 Aw-9977). 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Insurer Of Car No. CG-07 Aw-9977). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate. For other Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (28.09.2026) 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 22.11.2022, passed in Claim Case No. 210/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.17,57,800/- as compensation for the death of Jaiprakash Yadav, who died in a road accident which took place on 30.07.2020. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding inadequate compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month, whereas the same ought to have been assessed at Rs. 8,860/- per month in accordance with the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He further submits that the compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is also on the lower side. It is, therefore, prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be 3 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. 8,000/-. However, in the opinion of this Court, in view of the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, applicable at the relevant time, the monthly income of the deceased ought to be taken at Rs. 8,860/-. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased to be about 34 years at the time of the accident and having regard to the number of claimants (total 6), has added 40% towards future prospects to the income of the deceased, deducted 1/4th towards his personal and living expenses, and applied a multiplier of 16. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid computation is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. Under the conventional heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/-. However, the amount under the said heads ought to have been assessed at Rs. 2,97,000/-. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned award warrants modification by re-assessing the compensation payable to the claimants. 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 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 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. 8,000 x 12 = 96,000/- Rs. 8,860 x 12 = 1,06,320/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 38,400) = 1,34,400/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 42,528) = 1,48,848/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 33,600) = 1,00,800/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 37,212) = 1,11,636/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = 16,12,800/- (x) 16 = 17,86,176/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 1,45,000/- Rs. 2,97,000/- (16,500+16,500+2,64, 000) Total Rs.17,57,800 Rs. 20,83,176/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.17,57,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.20,83,176/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.17,57,800/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,25,376/-. 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 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 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