1 2026:CGHC:17170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 707 of 2021 1 - Samarin Bai W/o Late Vishnu Prasad Aged About 32 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o Village Darritalab Purani Basti, Ward No. 06 Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Hasdev Prasad S/o Late Vishnu Prasad Aged About 13 Years (Son) Appellant No. 01 Is Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Samarin Bai, W/o Late Vishnu Prasad, Caste Kenwat, R/o Village Darritalab Purani Basti, Ward No. 06 Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ...Appellants versus 1 - Harihar Prasad Pandey S/o Late Radhelal Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Sivani Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver). 2 - S.K. Agrawal And Sons Korba Proprietor Satish Agrawal, S/o Omprakash Agrawal, Aged About 50 Years R/o Agroha, Marg Near Hotel Relex- In Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh (Vihicle Driver). 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For Res. No. 3 : Ms. Trisha Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Ms. M. Aasha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.15 18:33:23 +0530 2 07.04.2026. 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 22.03.2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 17 of 2019. 2. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 8,36,400/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Vishnu Prasad in an accident that took place on 23.08.2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle(Trailer) bearing Registration No. CG12-S/5155 driven by driver/respondent No.1 Owned by Owner/respondent No. 2 insured with the Insurance Company/respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/ Vishnu Prasad sustained severe injuries, due to which he died. 3. As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Vishnu Prasad was aged about 35 years and was working as mason and was earning Rs. 30,000/- 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 five issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased/Vishnu Prasad was aged about 35 years and was working as mason and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month 3 whereas the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 4,500/-. 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. 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. 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. 9,000/- 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 9,000/- 2. Future Prospects @ 40% 3600/- 3. Total Income 12,600/- 4. Total Yearly Income 12,600X12= 1,51,200/- 5. Personal expenditure (1/3) 1,51,200/3= 50,400/- 6. Net Income 1,51,200- 50,400= 1,00,800/- 7. Multiplier of 16 applied to assess total loss of dependency 1,00,800X16= 16,12,800/- 4 8. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 9. Loss of estate 15,000/- Spousal Consortium 80,000/- Total compensation 17,22,800/- 11. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 8,36,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 17,22,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 836400/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 8,86,400/-. the additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 12.11.2021 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 being made, one F.D. of Rs. 4.5 lacs for a period of two years shall be made in the name of appellant No. 1/ Smt. Samarin Bai and one F.D. of Rs. 4 lacs shall be made in the name of appellant No. 2/ Minor Hasdev Prasad and he would be entitled to withdraw the same only after attaining the age of majority and remaining amount shall be disbursed to the appellant No. 1. 13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami