1 2026:CGHC:15613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2134 of 2024 1 - Amrita Kumari Sooryavanshi Wd/o Late Vinod Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Nahribhatha, Jalso, Post O昀케ce - Semartal, Police Station - Koni, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Krishna Bai Garhewal W/o Makhanlal Garhewal, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Nahribhatha, Jalso, Post O昀케ce - Semartal, Police Station - Koni, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Makhan S/o Mahettar Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Nahribhatha, Jalso, Post O昀케ce - Semartal, Police Station - Koni, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar Shyam S/o Jan Singh Shyam Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sargadhodi (Bitkuli), Police Station - Sipat, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 12/a Q 8416) 2 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Division O昀케ce - Shri Ram Trade Centre, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Satand, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 12/a Q 8416) ... Respondents Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.20 14:50:34 +0530 2 For Appellants : Shri Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None despite service Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 06/04/2026 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 20.6.2024 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.1070 of 2023. 2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.20,54,000 on account of death of Vinod Kumar in an accident that occurred on 21.4.2023 by rash and negligent driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 12 AQ 8416 driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. 3. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 27 years. He was a wall painter and earning Rs.25,000 per month. 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.63,50,000 was claimed. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 denied the averments of the claim application. Respondent No.2/insurance company also pleaded that the deceased himself was negligent in driving his vehicle and respondent No.1/driver and owner of the o昀昀ending vehicle 3 has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 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 aged about 27 years. He was a wall painter and was earning Rs.25,000 per month. The claimants, i.e., the wife and parents of the deceased were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Thus, this Court can safely assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.25,000, which the learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding to Rs.10,000 per month. Learned counsel prays that a suitable enhancement may be made in the compensation. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/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. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with due care. 9. The Claims Tribunal has found that the deceased was a skilled labour and assessed his monthly income to Rs.10,000. On the analysis of the evidence available on record, it appears to be on lower side. Parents and wife were dependent upon the income of the deceased. The deceased was a young boy of 27 years age. Thus, taking into consideration the facts, circumstances and 4 evidence, minimum wages and nature of job, age of the deceased, this Court is inclined to assess monthly income of the deceased to Rs.12,000. 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.12,000 x 12 =) 1,44,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,44,000 x 40% Future Prospects = Rs.57,600; Rs.1,44,000 + Rs.57,600 =) 2,01,600 3 Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.2,01,600 / 3 = Rs.67,200; Rs.2,01,600 – Rs.67,200 =) 1,34,400 4 Loss of Dependency after Application of Multiplier (Rs.1,34,400 x 17 =) 22,84,800 5 Funeral Expenses 16,500 6 Loss of Estate 16,500 7 Spousal Consortium 44,000 8 Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000 x 2 =) 80,000 Total Compensation = 24,41,800 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 20,54,000 Enhancement in Compensation = 3,87,800 5 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.3,87,800. 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., 12.11.2024 till 昀椀nal payment of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.2/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, an amount of Rs.2,50,000 be kept in a 昀椀xed deposit in the name of appellant No.1 in a nationalised bank for a period of 2 years. Amount of Rs.50,000 each, total Rs.1,00,000, be disbursed to appellants No.2 and 3. Remaining amount 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