1 CGHC010172212023 2026:CGHC:42218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 973 of 2023 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Authorised Authority, Deputy Manager, In-Charge, T P Hub, Divisional Office First Floor, L I C Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Dulari Bai Dewangan W/o Jhallu Ram Dewangan Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Bazar Chowk, Indirapara, Bhilai- 3, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jhallu Ram Dewangan S/o Kanhaiya Lal Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Bazar Chowk, Indirapara, Bhilai- 3, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Suman Dewangan D/o Jhallu Ram Dewangan Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Bazar Chowk, Indirapara, Bhilai- 3, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Rajeshwari Dewangan D/o Jhallu Ram Dewangan Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Bazar Chowk, Indirapara, Bhilai- 3, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Harishankar Dubey S/o Triveni Dubey Aged About 57 Years R/o Qr. No. Ashoka 57, Kharun Greens, Kumhari, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.30 10:39:59 +0530 2 6 - Gautam Bhaumik S/o Haradhan Bhaumik R/o Ward No. 27, Subhash Nagar, Nandini Road, Power House, P.S. Chhawani, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate, For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 28 / 09 / 2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 21.12.2022 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.199/2020, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of ₹23,89,506/- on account of the death of Bhupendra Kumar Dewangan, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 22.05.2020. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the deceased was unmarried aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted half (½) of the income towards his personal and living expenses, instead of one- third. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be modified to that extent. 3. The aforesaid submission has not been opposed by learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4. 4. It is not in dispute that the deceased was an unmarried 3 person aged about 22 years at the time of the accident. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, read with the settled principles governing determination of compensation in the case of an unmarried deceased, half (½) of the income is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. The Tribunal, however, has deducted one-third of the income towards personal expenses. The said deduction, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly modified from one- third to one-half. Cross-Objection 5. The claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 have also preferred cross-objection seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 submits that the deceased was working as an electrician. In paragraph 29 of the impugned award, the Tribunal itself has assessed his income at 416/- per day by treating him ₹ as a skilled labourer. However, while determining his monthly income, the Tribunal has taken only 26 working days in a month and accordingly assessed the monthly income at 10,816/-. According to learned counsel, the ₹ monthly income ought to have been calculated by taking 30 days in a month, which would come to 12,480/- per ₹ month. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant– Insurance Company submits that, on the date of accident, the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled labourer were ₹10,290/- per month, whereas the Tribunal has assessed 4 the monthly income of the deceased at 10,816/- which is ₹ already higher than the applicable minimum wages. It is, therefore, contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any enhancement. 8. The accident occurred on 22.05.2020. On the said date, the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled labourer were ₹10,290/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at 10,816/- per month, taking into ₹ consideration the nature of his occupation and treating him as a skilled worker. Thus, the income assessed by the Tribunal is found to be just and proper. Accordingly, the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement on this count. 9. So far as the other components of compensation are concerned, having regard to the date of the accident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants (four claimants), this Court finds that the addition towards future prospects, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal and the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are just and proper and do not call for any interference. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of 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, the compensation is recomputed as under:- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 S. No. Heads Calculation 1. Income 10,816 × 12 = 1,29,792 2. Future Prospects (+) 40% i.e. 51,916.8 = 181708.8 3. Deduction towards Personal Expenses (−) 1/2 (90854.4)= 90,854.4 4. Multiplier × 18 = 16,35,379.2 5. Funeral Expenses 16,500 6. Loss of Estate 16,500 7. Loss of Consortium 44,000 × 4 = 1,76,000 Total 18,44,379.2 ₹ in round figure ₹18,44,379 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 shall now be entitled to a total compensation of ₹18,44,379/- instead of 23,89,506/- ₹ awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The impugned award is accordingly modified to the aforesaid extent. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered. 12. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant– Insurance Company is allowed, and the cross-objection preferred by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 seeking enhancement of compensation is dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai