1 2026:CGHC:15817 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2249 of 2019 1 - Rahul Agariya S/o Pradhan Agariya Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Satpata, Police Station Vishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Shiv Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shivpal Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Jamadi, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Madusudan Gupta S/o Bhairo Aged About 55 Years R/o New Miners Ward No. 32, Godaripara, Office Line, Chirmiri, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Ward No. 25, Guru Govind Singh Ward No. 02, N.D. Floor, Sirman Towers Pandri, Road L.I.C. Infront Of I.C. Building Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Vehicle), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.04.08 11:03:53 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Devendra Kashyap on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel on instructions of Mr. Anshuman Rabra, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 07.04.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 15/11/2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 112/2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,10,460/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant for the injuries sustained by him. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 4,500/-, however, as per the minimum wage notification prevailing at the time of the accident, monthly income of the appellant should be Rs. 9,230/- and further the Claims Tribunal has only granted Rs. 10,000/- under pain and mental agony, however, it ought to have granted Rs. 40,000/-, thus, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. 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. Considering the injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering that the monthly income of the appellant/claimant ought to have been Rs. 9,230/- as per the minimum wage notification prevailing on the date of the accident, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal seems to be on the lower side, as such, this Court is re-computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. For Loss of Income of one year Rs. 4,500/- x 12 = Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 9,230/- x 12 = Rs. 1,10,760/- 2. Attendant’s fee Rs. 54,750/- Rs. 1,10,000/- 3. Medical Expenses Rs. 81,710/- Rs. 81,710/- 4. Pain and Mental Agony Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 5. Conveyance and Nutritional Food Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 2,10,460/- Rs. 3,52,470/- 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,10,460/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 4 Rs. 3,52,470/-. Hence, the appellant/claimant is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,42,010/-. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 05/10/2018 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet