1 2026:CGHC:18365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1717 of 2025 1 - Hema Wife Of Doman Lal Pal, Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Village - Bhelwakuda, Post - Rampur, Police Station And Tahsil - Bhakhara, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Doman Lal Son Of Gokul Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village - Bhelwakuda, Post - Rampur, Police Station And Tahsil - Bhakhara, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Chumman Lal Son Of Late Omlal Patel, Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Village- Bhelwakuda, Post-Rampur, Police Station And Tahsil-Bhakhara, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Branch Manager,branch Office, National Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor, Mobin Mahal P.B. No. 122, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 22.04.2026 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 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Circuit Court, Kurud, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) (for short learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 105/2024. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 16,85,456/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Homendra Kumar in an accident that took place on 24.05.2024 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Motorcycle) bearing Registration No. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.04.24 17:49:16 +0530 2 CG-04-DW-5441, driven by driver/respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No. 2. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/Homendra Kumar sustained severe injuries, remained hospitalize and died during treatment. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased/Homendra Kumar, was aged about 18 years and was working as a painter and sculptor, earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4) Respondent No. 1 filed his written statement and denied the averments of the facts. Respondent No.2/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) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased, Homendra Kumar, was a skilled labour engaged as a painter and also a sculpturist. He was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. To prove the same, the employer of the deceased was examined, who proved the salary certificate. The Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the said certificate and in applying only the minimum wages prevailing at that time to assess the compensation. Thus, it is prayed that the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 7) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supports the award and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the salary certificate, as no other documentary evidence to substantiate the same has been filed or proved. Merely issuing a certificate would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the deceased was earning such an amount. Hence, no interference by this Court is warranted. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 9) Learned counsel for the appellants tried to persuade this Court that by virtue of salary certificate, the income of the deceased is stands proved. The learned Tribunal has categorically discussed the evidence of AW- 3 Thaneshwar who has categorically deposed the deceased was engaged in painting work and he used to work under him doing painting and artwork. He further deposed that he paid the deceased wages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day and had issued a certificate in this regard on his 3 letterhead Ex- P/13. However, in cross-examination, this witness admitted that he works at different places on a roaming basis, maintains an attendance register for work and does not make daily payments to his workers but pays them on demand. He further deposed that he maintains a register regarding payments but failed to produce the same before the Court. 10) 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, therefore, this Court is of the view that Rs. 11,000/- can be safely taken as income of the deceased. 11) 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 12,000/- 2. Future Prospects @ 40% 4,800/- 3. Total Income 16,800/- 4. Total Yearly Income 16,800 X12= 2,01,600/- 5. Personal expenditure (1/2) 2,01,600/2= 1,00,800/- 6. Net Income 2,01,600- 1,00,800= 1,00,800/- 6. Multiplier of 18 applied to assess total loss of dependency 1,00,800 X18= 18,14,400/- 7. Funeral Expenses 18,000/- (As awarded by learned Tribunal) 8. Loss of estate 18,000/- (As awarded by learned Tribunal) 9. Filial Consortium 80,000/-(40,000/-each, as awarded by learned Tribunal) Total compensation 19,30,400/- 12) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 16,85,456/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 19,30,400/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 16,85,456/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,44,944/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 06.08.2025. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 4 13) The respondent No. 2–Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of sixty (60) days from today. Upon such deposit being made, a sum of Rs. 1.00,000/- each shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1 & 2/claimants for a period of two years. The balance amount shall be released to appellant No. 1 by way of bank transfer/account payee cheque. 14) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari