1 2026:CGHC:15775 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 654 of 2022 1 - Roop Chand Dahare (Dahariya) S/o Late Gopal Dahare Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Ashok Koshale Farmhouse Village Kadaguda Munjala P.S. Bhanpuri District Bastar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Dashoda W/o Roop Chand Dahare Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Ashok Koshale Farmhouse Village Kadaguda Munjala P.S. Bhanpuri District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Sunil Kumar Ahuja S/o Krishnachand Ahuja R/o Kankalinpara Rajapara Behind Police Quarter Colony Kanker District Kanker (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle) 2 - Virendra Kumar Patel S/o Ratiram Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kotejunga P.S. And District Kanker (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle) 3 - The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Branch O昀케ce Anupama Chowk Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) (Insurer) ... Respondents Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.22 17:03:57 +0530 2 For Appellants : Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Shri Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate through video conferencing For Respondent No.3 : Shri Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate 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 26.2.2022 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.95 of 2020. 2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,50,000 on account of death of Pradeep Dahariya in an accident that occurred on 18.8.2020 by rash and negligent driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.CG 04 KT 9448 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 19 years. He was a Munshi in a farm house. He was earning Rs.15,000 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.30,92,000 was 3 claimed. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3/insurance company denied the averments of the claim application. Respondent No.3/insurance company also pleaded that respondent No.1/driver of the o昀昀ending vehicle and the deceased did not have valid and e昀昀ective licence to drive their respective vehicles. The insurance company pleaded violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in driving the o昀昀ending vehicle. The insurance company also pleaded that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in driving his motorcycle. 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 19 years. He was working as a Munshi, i.e., a clerk in a farm house. The Claims Tribunal has committed an error in holding the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.5,000 treating him to be aged about 17 years. Future prospects has also not been added. Thus, learned counsel prays that suitable enhancement may be made. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 support the impugned award. They jointly submit that no documentary evidence is available on record to suggest the profession and income of the deceased. They further 4 submit that just compensation has been awarded. Hence, no interference is warranted. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care. 9. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 19 years. According to the appellants/claimants, he was working as a Munshi, i.e., a clerk in a farm house. On the basis of the post mortem report, the Claims Tribunal found his age to be 17 years. In the opinion of this Court, this is a correct 昀椀nding of fact. However, the Claims Tribunal fell into error in assessing monthly income of the deceased only to Rs.5,000. The Claims Tribunal further erred in not awarding any future prospects. The minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time was around Rs.8,860. Thus, taking into consideration the evidence available on record, this Court is inclined to assess monthly income of the deceased to Rs.9,000 and 40% future prospects is also added. 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 5 (Rs.) 1 Annual Income (Rs.9,000 x 12 = ) 1,08,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,08,000 x 40% = Rs.43,200; Rs.1,08,000 + Rs.43,200 =) 1,51,200 3 Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.1,51,200 / 2 = Rs.75,600; Rs.1,51,200 – Rs.75,600 =) 75,600 4 Loss of Dependency after Application of Multiplier (Rs.75,600 x 18 =) 13,60,800 5 Funeral Expenses 15,000 6 Loss of Estate 15,000 7 Filial Consortium to Father and Mother (Rs.40,000 x 2 =) 80,000 Total Compensation = 14,70,800 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 6,50,000 Enhancement in Compensation = 8,20,800 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.8,20,800. 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., 13.6.2022 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. On the deposit being made by the insurance company, a sum of Rs.4,00,000 each, total Rs.8,00,000, shall be invested in 昀椀xed deposit in a nationalised bank in the names of appellants No.1 and 2 for a 6 period of 2 years. Remaining amount shall be disbursed to appellant No.2. 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