1 2026:CGHC:14686 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1079 of 2022 1 - Gulapabai W/o Late Makhanlal Sahu Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village Dhardei, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Late Makhanlal Sahu Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Dhardei, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dilip Kumar S/o Late Makhanlal Sahu Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village Dhardei, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pushpa Sahu S/o Late Makhanlal Sahu Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Village Dhardei, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Kapildas Manikpuri S/o Dharamudas Manikpuri Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Ward No. 13, Sanjay Nagar, Champa, P.S. And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Bearing Registration No, Cg 04 Jd-7180). 2 - Sabbir Khan S/o Sarif Khan Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Ward No. 25, Champa P.S. And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Bearing Registration No. Cg 04 Jd-7180). 3 - Sbi General Insurance Company Ltd, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Vyapar Vihar, Main Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Bearing Registration No. Cg 04 Jd-7180). ... Respondents AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.09 11:02:05 +0530 2 For appellants : Mr. Devendra Kashyap, Advocate For Res./Insurance Company : Mr. Utshav Mahishwar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 27.03.2026. 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 13.04.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 58 of 2021. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,66,000/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Makhanlal Sahu in an accident that took place on 25.03.2021 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle(Swaraj Majda) bearing Registration No. CG 04J.D./7180 driven by driver/respondent No.1 Owned by respondent No. 2 insured with the respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/ Makhanlal Sahu sustained severe injuries, due to which he died. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Makhanlal Sahu was aged about 59 years and was working as a mason and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4) Respondent No. 1 & 2/Driver, owner and Respondent No.3/Insurance company have field their written statement, in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application. The Insurance Company further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5) On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 4 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 3 6) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased/Makhanlal Sahu was aged about 59 years and was a mason and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month whereas the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 3,000/-. Alternatively, he submits that looking to the date of accident, atleast minimum wages should have been taken for assessment of compensation and amount on other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, suitable enhancement may be made by this Court. 7) Mr. Mahiswar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. supports the award and submits that in view of evidence available on record and findings of the learned Tribunal is justified and just compensation has been awarded. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 9) The deceased was found to be 61 years by the learned Tribunal which is a concrete finding based on evidence on record. Considering the evidence available on record; number of dependents; age of the deceased; date of accident; nature of job & minimum wages prevailing at that time this Court is of the view that Rs. 8,000/- can be safely taken as income of the deceased. 10) In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S.N Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the deceased 8,000/- 2 Total Income 8,000X 12= 96,000/- 3 Personal expenditure (1/4) 96,000/4= 24,000/- 4 Net Income 96,000- 24000= 72,000/- 5 Multiplier of 7 applied to assess total loss of dependency 72,000X7= 5,04,000/- 6 Funeral Expenses 16,500/- 7 Loss of estate 16,500/- 8. Spousal Consortium 44,000/- 9. Parental Consortium 1,20,000/-(40,000/-each to A-2 to A-4) 4 10 Total compensation Rs. 7,01,000/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 2,66,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 7,01,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 4,35,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,35,000/-. the additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 30.09.2022 The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12) The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal and enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from today, on such deposit is being made, Rs. 2 lacs for 2 years shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1/ Gulapabai and Rs. 50,000/- each shall be disbursed to appellant Nos. 2 to 4. and remaining amount shall be disbursed to the appellant No. 1. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami