1 2026:CGHC:15773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2468 of 2025 1 - Smt. Fuleshwari Bai W/o Late Gendoo Ram Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Mulle, Police Station - Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) At Present R/o. C/o Laxminarayan Yadav, Mathapara, Raipur, Police Station - Tikarapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Rajkumar S/o Late Gendoo Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Mulle, Police Station - Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) At Present R/o. C/o Laxminarayan Yadav, Mathapara, Raipur, Police Station - Tikarapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Kishunram Mandawi S/o Budhram Mandawi Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Pirhapal, Police Station And District- Kanker (C.G.) (Driver Of The O昀昀ending Vehicle Car No. CG-04 NF 8555) 2 - Shailesh Sharma S/o Late Byas Parsad Sharma Aged About 48 Years R/o Littipara, Kanker, Police Station - City Kotwali, Kanker, District - Kanker (C.G.) (Owner Of The O昀昀ending Vehicle Car No. CG-04 NF 8555) 3 - The Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch O昀케ce, 2nd Floor, M.S. Silver Plaza, In Front Of Minerals O昀케ce, Mahavir Nagar, Ring Road No. 01, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of The O昀昀ending Vehicle Car No. CG-04 NF 8555) ... Respondents Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.23 11:54:57 +0530 2 For Appellants : Shri Vishwanath Shriwas, Advocate on behalf of Shri Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None despite service Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 07/04/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) calls in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 26.11.2024 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.602 of 2023. 2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,84,320 on account of death of Genduram Yadav in an accident that occurred on 9.12.2022 by rash and negligent driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle car bearing registration No.CG 04 NF 8555 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 3. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 57 years. He was a mason and earning Rs.700 per day. He met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle which resulted into his death. Total compensation of Rs.33,50,000 was claimed. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3/insurance 3 company denied the averments of the claim application. Respondent No.3/insurance company also pleaded that the deceased himself was riding the bicycle rashly and negligently. Respondent No.1 did not have a valid and e昀昀ective licence to drive the o昀昀ending vehicle. The o昀昀ending vehicle was being driven for commercial purpose. Therefore, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in driving the o昀昀ending vehicle. 5. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a mason, aged about 58 years having experience. The minimum wages at the relevant point of time was around Rs.9,700 per month. His wife and son were dependent upon his income. Thus, the Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.7,800, which deserves to be enhanced. Hence, learned counsel prays that suitable enhancement may be made. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company supports the impugned award. He submits that no documentary evidence is brought on record to support the income of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased rightly and has awarded just compensation. He submits that no interference is warranted. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with due care. 9. The deceased was said to be a mason. He was said to be aged about 58 years. He was a resident of Raipur, which is a big city. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and also the evidence available on record, the minimum wages prevailing, nature of job, age and number of dependents, Rs.10,000 can be safely taken as monthly income of the deceased. 10. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Annual Income (Rs.10,000 x 12 =) 1,20,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,20,000 x 10% Future Prospects = Rs.12,000; Rs.1,20,000 + Rs.12,000 =) 1,32,000 3 Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.1,32,000 / 3 = Rs.44,000; Rs.1,32,000 – Rs.44,000 =) 88,000 4 Loss of Dependency after Application of Multiplier (Rs.88,000 x 9 =) 7,92,000 5 Funeral Expenses 16,500 5 6 Loss of Estate 16,500 7 Spousal Consortium to Wife 44,000 8 Parental Consortium to Son 40,000 Total Compensation = 9,09,000 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 5,84,320 Enhancement in Compensation = 3,24,680 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.3,24,680. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of 昀椀ling of the instant appeal, i.e., 12.11.2025 till 昀椀nal payment of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with the interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, Rs.2,50,000 shall be invested in a 昀椀xed deposit in a nationalised bank in the name of appellant No.1 for a period of 2 years. Rs.50,000 shall be disbursed to appellant No.2. Remaining amount shall be disbursed to appellant No.1. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modi昀椀ed to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal