1 2026:CGHC:7972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1621 of 2015 1 - Smt. Santoshi Bai W/o Late Shri Makhanlal Sinha, Aged About 28 Years 2 - Ku. Hemeshwari D/o Late Shri Makhanlala Sinha, Aged About 12 Years 3 - Ku. Aarti D/o Late Shri Makhanlala Sinha, Aged About 8 Years 4 - Shrawan Kumar S/o Late Shri Makhanlala Sinha, Aged About 4 Years Minor, 5 - Amrit Sinha S/o Late Shri Mardan Sinha, Aged About 58 Years 6 - Smt. Budhiyarin Bai W/o Shri Amrit Sinha, Aged About 54 Years (Appellants No.2 to 4 are minors represented through their mother natural guardian, appellant No.1 Smt. Santoshi Bai) All R/o Village Rajpur, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Civil And Rev. Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ...........Claimants, ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Rakesh Singh S/o Late Gyan Singh, Aged About 32 Years R/o J.P.Nagar, In Front Of Shiv Mandir, Near Shravan Kirana Store, Ward No. 22, Camp- 2, P.S. Chhawni, Civil And Rev. Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Reg. No. C.G. 04 G 7546, 2 - Mohammed Siddiqui S/o Shri Abdul Majid, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- House No. 100 Of Takiyapara, Beside House Of Parshad Gani Bhai, Durg, P.S. Durg, Civil And Rev. Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Reg. No. C.G. 04 G 7546, 3 - Kamlesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Bhagela Ram Patel, R/o Village Daihandeeh Udiyakhurd, P.S. Sahaspur, Lohara, Civil And Rev. Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Tata Specio, Sumo DI Bearing Reg. No. C.G. 09/ 5105, 4 - Shyamlal Jaiswal S/o Shri Jaikishan Jaiswal, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Daihandeen Udiyakhurd, P.S. Sahaspur, Lohara, Civil And Rev. Distt. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.02.13 15:57:44 +0530 2 Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Tata Specio, Sumo DI Bearing Reg. No. C.G. 09 G 5105, 5 - Branch Manager, Through The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Kawardha, Through The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Durg, Rajendra Park Chowk, G.E.Road, Tehsil Durg, Civil And Revenue Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh Insurer Of The Tata Specio, Sumo D I Bearing Reg. No. C.G. 09 G 5105, ... Respondents For Appellants : Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 4 : None, though served. For Respondent 5 : Shri Shivansh Gopal appears on behalf of Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 13/02/2026 1. This is claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg (for short, the Claims Tribunal) in M.A.Claim Case No.33/2012 vide impugned award dated 28.02.2015. Parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Tribunal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.05.2012, when Makhan Lal Sinha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) along with his companions was going to his place of residence from Raipur, while sitting in Sumo Spacio bearing registration No.CG-09-5105 (in short, ‘the offending vehicle’), at that time, near milestone 42/8 Dhamdha ahead of Deori turn, on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver/Non-applicant No.3, the offending vehicle dashed the stationed Dumper bearing registration No.CG-04-G-7546, owing to which, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It is not in dispute that Non- applicant No.4 - Shyamlal was the owner of the offending vehicle whereas Non-applicant No.5/the Oriental Insurance Company Limited 3 was insurer of the same. 3. The Claimants, being wife, minor children and parents, filed a claim petition seeking total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating that the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.9,000/- by masonry and petty contracts. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, has held Non-applicant/driver of the offending vehicle liable for cause of accident by driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which, deceased died and there was no breach of policy conditions, assessed and awarded Rs.7,07,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realisation while fixing the liability upon Non-applicants No. 3, 4 & 5/driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 5. 5. Shri Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was engaged in masonry work and petty contracts, but the learned Claims Tribunal did not consider the same while assessing his annual income and merely on notional basis, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum on its own, which is on very lower side and not in consonance with minimum wages provisions. The accident occurred on 27th May, 2012 and as per minimum wages provisions, the deceased, even if he is considered to be unskilled labour, could have easily earned Rs.4,498/- on the date of accident and prayed for fixing the monthly income at Rs.4,498/- per month. He also contends that no future prospects has been awarded. He relied 4 upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 in support of his arguments. 6. On the other hand, Shri Shivansh Gopal, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that he has not preferred any appeal against the impugned award. He further submits that although at the time of accident, the offending vehicle is insured with respondent No.5/insurance company, but the learned Claims Tribunal, after proper appreciation of evidence, just and reasonable compensation has been awarded to the claimants, which does not call for interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence. 8. It is not disputed that the deceased Makhan Lal Sinha has died due to accidental death caused by the offending vehicle Tata Spacio being driven by its driver/Non-applicant No.3. As per the statement of P.W.1 Santoshi, wife of the deceased, has stated that at the time of accident, her husband was aged 32 years and was engaged in masonry work and petty contracts and used to earn Rs.9,000/-. Although no documentary evidence was submitted by the claimants with regard to proof of income of the deceased, but the approach of the learned Claims Tribunal in assessing on its own the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- on notional basis is not sustainable. Even if Minimum Wages provisions for unskilled persons are considered, then it can safely be inferred that the deceased’s monthly income would certainly 5 be Rs.4,498/- and considering the facts of the case, nature of job and looking to minimum wages at the prevalent time, it is held that the deceased used to earn Rs.4,498/- per month at the relevant time. Further, the deceased was aged 32 years and the applicable multiplier would be 16 and that, the deduction of ¼th towards personal and living expenses was also applied by the Tribunal, however, it fallen in error in not awarding future prospects. 9. In view of above, taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner :- Sl. No. Description Amount in Rs. 1. Income of the deceased @ Rs.4,498/- per month (Rs.4,498 x 12) 53,976/- 2. 40% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects 21,590/- 3. Total annual income of the deceased 75,566/- 4. 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (75,566 – 18,891) 56,675/- 5. Multiplier of 16 applied to assess total loss of dependency. 9,06,800/- 6. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 7. Loss of estate 15,000/- 8. Loss of spousal consortium to the appellant/claimant No.1, loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2 to 4 and loss of filial consortium to appellants No.5 & 6. 2,40,000/- Total compensation 11,76,800/- Award of the learned Tribunal. (-) 7,07,000/- Enhanced amount by this Court 4,69,800/- 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,69,800/-. The additional amount shall carry interest as made by the Tribunal. The 6 enhanced amount with interest shall be deposited by the insurer. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani