1 2026:CGHC:13753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1859 of 2024 1 - Smt. Pushpanjali Mohanti W/o. Late Vijay Mohanti Aged About 69 Years R/o. Main Road, Netaji Chowk, Near Lodhi School, P.S. - Aarang, Tahsil - Aarang And District - Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant). 2 - Vikas Mohanti S/o. Late Vijay Mohanti Aged About 39 Years R/o. Main Road, Netaji Chowk, Near Lodhi School, P.S. - Aarang, Tahsil - Aarang And District - Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant). ... Appellants versus 1 - Rajesh Kumar Jain S/o. Shri Chunnilal Jain Aged About 24 Years R/o. Ward No. 01, Pithora, P.S. And Tahsil - Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. (C.G.-04/mn/9744). 2 - Alok Shukla S/o. Shri Dilip Shukla Aged About 39 Years R/o. Brahmanpara, Aarang, P.S. And Tahsil - Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. (C.G.-04/mn/9744). 3 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional- Office At 2nd Floor, Shiv-Mohan Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. (C.G.-04/mn/9744). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Yugal Sahu, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate For Res. No. 3 : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.07 18:33:20 +0530 2 23.03.2026 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 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 169/2022. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,91,288/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased- Vijay Kumar Mohanti in an accident that took place on 23.06.2022 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Motorcycle) bearing Registration No. CG-04 MN/9744 driven by driver/respondent No.1- Rajesh Kumar Jain, Owned by respondent No. 2/Alok Shukla, insured with the respondent No. 3/ Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/ Vijay Kumar Mohanti sustained severe injuries, due to which he died. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Vijay Kumar Mohanti was aged about 70 years and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per months from the betel shop. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4) Respondent No. 1 & 2/Driver and owner field their written statement. Respondent No.3/Insurance company in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and 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 7 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 6) Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, submits that the deceased, Vijay Kumar Mohanti, was about 70 years of age and was earning Rs. 20,000 per month. However, the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income at only Rs. 9,000. It is further contended that although the deceased was around 70 years old, the Tribunal erroneously applied a multiplier of ‘3’ instead of ‘5’. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may grant a suitable enhancement of compensation. 3 7) Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. supports the award and submits that looking to the age of the deceased the multiplier of “3” has rightly been awarded. He also submits that in view of the evidence available on record, the findings of the learned Tribunal is just and proper 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 the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 9,000/-, though at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 70 years and the learned Tribunal has assessed the multiplier of ‘3’, which in opinion of this Court would be “5” for assessment of compensation. 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. Income of the deceased 9,000X12= 1,08,000/- 2. Personal expenditure (1/3) 1,08,000/3= 36,000/- 3. Multiplier of 5 applied to assess total loss of dependency 1,08000-36,000= 72,000X5= 3,60,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses 16,500/- 5. Loss of estate 16,500/- 6. Spousal and Parental Consortium 44,000 +40000= 84,000/- to the wife and son of the deceased 7. Bills and treatment expenses Rs. 2,05,288 Total compensation 6,82,288/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 491288/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 682288/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1491288 /-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,91,000/-. the additional amount shall 4 carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e.18.09.2024.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, 1 lacs be invested in the name of appellant No. 1/ Smt. Pushpanjali Mohanti for a period of one year and Rs 50,000/- disbursed to appellant No. 2/ Vikas Mohanti and remaining amount disbursed to appellant No. 1. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami