1 2026:CGHC:13217 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1830 of 2024 1 - Narayan Chouhan S/o Swarn Chouhan, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village-Goverdhan Chowk, Old Rajendra Nagar, Thana-Rajendra Nagar Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ----(Claimant) 2 - Maya Chouhan W/o Narayan Chouhan, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village-Goverdhan Chowk, Old Rajendra Nagar, Thana-Rajendra Nagar Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ----(Claimant) ... Appellants versus 1 - Poonam Chand S/o Bhoju Kansari, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Dehanibhatha Baagbahra, Thana Baagbahra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ----(Driver Of The O4ending Vehicle Pickup No. C.G.-6/g.W./5650.) 2 - Tikam Chand Kansari S/o Bhoju Kansari, R/o Village-Dehanibhatha Baagbahra, Thana Baagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ------(Owner Of The O4ending Vehicle Pickup No.C.G.-6/g.W./5650) 3 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional O9cer, Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited, New Ground Floor Chirhuldih Ward Near-Rajkumar College, G.E. Road Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) ----(Insurer Of The O4ending Vehicle Pickup No. C.G.-6/g.W./5650) ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Shri A.L. Singroul, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.03.30 17:02:44 +0530 2 For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate For Other Respondents : None, despite service of notice Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 19/03/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) has been Dled assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 1.5.2024 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Claims Case No.522 of 2022. 2. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,51,000 in favour of the appellants/claimants on account of death of their son, namely, Mayank Chouhan in an accident that occurred on 29.5.2022 by rash and negligent driving of the o4ending vehicle pick up bearing registration No.CG 06 GW 5650 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 3. As per pleadings of the claim application Dled under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased was a student aged about 17 years. He was also engaged in imparting tuition. On account of the said accident, the appellants/claimants have su4ered irreparable loss. Their son/deceased would have become an aid to them in their old age. Thus, the appellants have claimed the above stated compensation. 3 4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents including the insurance company on various counts taking a plea of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The learned Claims Tribunal having framed issued decided the same in favour of the appellants and granted the above stated compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a manifest error in holding the annual income of the deceased only to Rs.50,000. She submits that the deceased was a brilliant student and was also engaged in imparting tuition and after completion of his studies he would have earned handsomely and would have helped the appellants in their old age. Thus, the impugned award deserves to be enhanced suitably. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company submits that the deceased was only a student and he was earning no income. Thus, the Dnding of the Claims Tribunal with regard to income of the deceased is correct. No interference is warranted. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care. 8. The learned Claims Tribunal found the annual notional income of the deceased to Rs.50,000. The deceased was aged about 17 years and according to the appellants, he was also engaged in imparting tuition. However, in the opinion of this Court, the 4 annual notional income of Rs.50,000 appears to be on lower side. Naturally, the deceased, after completion of his studies, would have helped his parents/appellants in their old age. They have lost their son. Taking into consideration the evidence available on record, age of the deceased, nature of his job and minimum wages, this Court is inclined to assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.8,000. 9. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Annual Income (Rs.8,000 x 12 =) 96,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.96,000 x 40% Future Prospects = 38,400; Rs.96,000 + Rs.38,400 =) 1,34,400 3 Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.1,34,400 / 2 =) 67,200 4 Loss of Dependency after Application of Multiplier (Rs.67,200 x 18 =) 12,09,600 5 Funeral Expenses 16,500 6 Loss of Estate 16,500 5 7 Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000 =) 80,000 Total Compensation = 13,22,600 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 7,51,000 Enhancement in Compensation = 5,71,600 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.5,71,600. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of Dling of the instant appeal till Dnal payment of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with the interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, a sum of Rs.2,50,000 in the name of appellant No.1 and a sum of Rs.2,50,000 in the name of appellant No.2 shall be deposited in Dxed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.2 Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modiDed to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal