1 2026:CGHC:18353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1602 of 2019 Mohd. Azharuddin Ansari S/o Mohd. Khalil Aged About 19 Years R/o Butapara, Deorikhurd, P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.............(Applicant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Praveen Kumar Vastrakar S/o Shri Ramadhar Vastrakar R/o Village Paraghat, Jairam Nagar, P.S. Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Through The Owner Of The Vehicle Govind Bagde, Aged About 44 Years, S/o Late Dev Rao Bagde, R/o Hemu Nagar, Ward No. 43, Ganpati Chowk, Near Sai Mandir, Behind Narayani Plot, Hemu Nagar, P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh............(Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Govind Bagde S/o Late Dev Raj Bagde Aged About 44 Years R/o Hemu Nagar, Ward No. 43, Ganpati Chowk, Near Sai Mandir, Behind Narayani Plot, Hemu Nagar, P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh...........(Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. Ground Floor, Vanijya Bahawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Branch Office At V.R. Plaza, Near Deep Hotel, Link Raod, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.........(Insurer Of The Vehicle)............ (Non-Applicants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 22.04.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 04.05.2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,46,483/- as compensation to the claimant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.36000/- (for six months) which should be Rs.46,560/- (for six months) as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, on the heads of pain and suffering, conveyance, special diet, attendant and future medical treatment, less amount has been awarded, which needs to be enhanced suitably. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the appellant have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of the claimant by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of the claimant on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with 3 utmost circumspection. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of claimant to be Rs.36000/- (for six months), however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.46,560/- (for six months) (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, no amount on the head of attendant has been awarded and, even, the amount awarded on the heads of pain and suffering, conveyance, special diet and future medical treatment are also on lower side. As such, in the opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced suitably. 6. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Loss of Income Rs.36000/- (for six months) Rs.46,560/- (for six months) 2 Medical Bills Rs.3,25,483/- Rs.3,25,483/- 3. Pain & Suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Conveyance & Special Diet Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/- 5. Attendant NIL Rs.30,000/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 6. Future medical treatment Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.4,46,483/- Rs.6,29,543/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.4,46,4483/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.6,29,543/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.4,46,483/-, the appellant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,83,060/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. s@if (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge