1 CGHC010293542023 2026:CGHC:42629 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1551 of 2023 1 - Mangturam Teta S/o Late Nathuram Teta Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bairbaira Mari, Raobeda, Bavnimari, Keshkal, District Kondagaon (C.G.) (Claimant) 2 - Prabhuram Teta S/o Mangturam Teta Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bairbaira Mari, Raobeda, Bavnimari, Keshkal, District Kondagaon (C.G.) (Claimant) 3 - Ku. Parmeshwari D/o Mangturam Teta Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Bairbaira Mari, Raobeda, Bavnimari, Keshkal, District Kondagaon (C.G.) (Claimant) 4 - Ku. Surekha D/o Mangturam Teta Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Bairbaira Mari, Raobeda, Bavnimari, Keshkal, District Kondagaon (C.G.) (Claimant) 5 - Suresh Kumar Teta S/o Mangturam Teta Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Bairbaira Mari, Raobeda, Bavnimari, Keshkal, District Kondagaon (C.G.) (Claimant) ... Appellants versus 1 - Devnath Jurri S/o Gopal Jurri Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kanhanpuri, Tahsil Kanker District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (Driver) 2 - Ramsay Darro S/o Gadoram Darro R/o Bhaisabeda Antagarh, Tahsil Antagarh, District Kanker (C.G.) (Owner) 3 - Branch Manager IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company, Branch Office New India Grand, Nehru Nagar Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Insurance Co.) ... Respondents Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.10.01 10:27:42 +0530 2 For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Adv. with Mr. Vikash Patel, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shrishti Attal on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Adv. For respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (30.09.2026) 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 30.06.2022, passed in Claim Case No. 5/2020, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.11,75,000/- as compensation for the death of Smt. Deshi Bai Teta (40-years-old) who died in a road accident which took place on 30.08.2019. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased, Deshi Bai, was a labourer and was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month; therefore, the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 6,000/- per month is on the lower side, as on the date of the accident, the minimum wages of the unskilled labourer were Rs. 8,400/-. He further submits that, given the deceased's age, as per guidelines issued by the Hon’ble apex Court in Sarla Verma, the multiplier would be 15, whereas the tribunal has applied 14. Hence, the appeal be allowed, and the award passed by the Claims Tribunal be 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. 3 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. In the case at hand, the learned Tribunal assessed the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 6,000/-. While the claimants asserted that the deceased worked as a labourer, was approximately 40 years of age, and earned Rs. 9,000/- per month, they failed to produce documentary evidence in support of this claim. Consequently, invoking the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, for unskilled labour, it is appropriate to fix the monthly income at Rs. 8,400/-. Furthermore, the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 14; in accordance with the guidelines established in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.1, the correct multiplier for the age bracket of 36 to 40 years is 15. The impugned award warrants modification to this limited extent. 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 Sethi2, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors3 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors4, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 6000x12 = 72,000/- Rs. 8,400x12 = 1,00,800/- 2. Future prospect (+)25% (i.e. 18,000) = 90,000 (+)25% (i.e. 25,200) = 1,26,000 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 22,500) = 67,500/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 31,500) = 94,500/- 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = 9,45,000/- (x) 15 = 14,17,500/- 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 5. Other conventional heads Rs. 2,30,000/- [15,000+15,000+(40,0 00x5)] Rs. 2,30,000/- [15,000+15,000+(40,000x 5)] Total Rs. 11,75,000/- Rs. 16,47,500/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.16,47,500/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.11,75,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,72,500/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal before this Court i.e. 05.09.2023 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 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