1 2026:CGHC:18105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2128 of 2024 1 - Rohit Kumar Marar S/o Sudhram Marar Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Chaitma, Tahsil And Police Station - Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Lachchhan Bai Marar W/o Rohit Kumar Marar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Chaitma, Tahsil And Police Station - Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashwani S/o Rohit Kumar Marar Aged About 15 Years Minor Through The Father (Natural Guardian) Appellant No. 01, Rohit Kumar Marar, R/o Village - Chaitma, Tahsil And Police Station - Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Lal Bahadur Singh S/o Shiv Prasad Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Tamsar, District - Sidhi Madhya Pradesh, Other Add. - Dilip Buildcon Camp, Chaitma, Tahsil And Police Station - Pali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle Mixure Machine No. C.G. 12 B.D.-0170) 2 - M/s Dilip Buildcon Limited Through Onwer/operator, R/o Rajiv Nagar, Katghora, Police Station And Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle Mixure Machine No. C.G. 12 B.D.-0170) 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office - Near I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle Mixure Machine No. C.G. 12 B.D.-0170) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Anand Keshawani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 21.04.2026 1) Heard on admission. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.04.23 11:02:14 +0530 2 2) Admit. 3) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4) 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 01.08.2024 passed by 1st learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, (C.G.) (for short learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 1115/2023. 5) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 16,58,952/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Yashwant Kumar in an accident that took place on 12.06.2023 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Mixer Machine) bearing Registration No. CG-12-BD-0170, driven by driver/respondent No.1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/Yashwant Kumar, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. 6) As per the pleadings, the deceased/Yashwant Kumar was aged about 20 years and was working as a Helper and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 7) Respondent No. 1 & 2/Driver and owner remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. 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. 8) On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 4 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 9) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased/Yashwant Kumar was aged about 20 years and was working as a Helper and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, whereas the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased/Yashwant Kumar to Rs. 9,960/- per months. Alternatively, he submits that looking to the date of accident, number of dependents 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. 3 10) 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. 11) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 12) 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. 13) 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 11,000/- 2. Future Prospects @ 40% 4,400/- 3. Total Income 15,400/- 4. Total Yearly Income 15,400 X12= 1,84,400/- 5. Personal expenditure (1/2) 1,84,400/2= 92,400/- 6. Net Income 1,84,400- 92,400= 92,400/- 7. Multiplier of 18 applied to assess total loss of dependency 92,400 X18= 16,63,200/- 8. Funeral Expenses 16,500/- (as awarded by learned Tribunal) 9. Loss of estate 16,500/- (as awarded by learned Tribunal) 10. Loss of Consortium 01,20,000/- (as awarded by learned Tribunal) Total compensation 18,16,200/- 14) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 16,58,952/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 18,16,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 16,58,952/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,57,248/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 12.11.2024. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 4 15) The respondent No. 3 insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days. On such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal shall pass an appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of enhanced amount to appellants/claimants Nos. 1 to 3. 16) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari