1 2026:CGHC:18698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1361 of 2024 1 - Siriya Sarthi W/o Late Rup Singh Sarthi Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Chotiguda, Post Raikera, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Somiya Sarthi D/o Late Rup Singh Sarthi Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Siriya Sarthi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Chotiguda, Post Raikera, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sonu Sarthi S/o Late Rup Singh Sarthi Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Siriya Sarthi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Chotiguda, Post Raikera, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sonika Sarthi D/o Late Rup Singh Sarthi Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Siriya Sarthi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Chotiguda, Post Raikera, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sunil Sarthi S/o Late Rup Singh Sarthi Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Siriya Sarthi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Chotiguda, Post Raikera, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ravindra Rathiya S/o Chamar Singh Rathiya Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chotiguda, Post And P.S. Gharghoda, Tahsil Gharghoda District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Owner And Driver Of Offending Vehicle Pickup Bearing Registration No. 15/a.C.- 3647) 2 - Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Insurance Company Ltd. Through 2 Branch Office Vyapar Vihar Road, Near Vinayak Netralaya Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Pickup Bearing Registration No. 15/a.C.- 3647) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 : None For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 23.04.2026 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Court of learned Second Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short, “the learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 392/2022. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 20,06,920/- to the appellants/claimants on account of the death of deceased Rup Singh Sarthi in a motor accident that occurred on 12.01.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (pickup) bearing Registration No. CG-15-AC-3647, driver cum owner by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased Rup Singh Sarthi was aged about 38 years and was working as a Rajmistri, earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants were wholly dependent upon his income, Therefore, the claimants have filed the application seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. 4) Respondent No. 1 (driver cum owner) filed his written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company), in the usual course, also denied the averments 3 and further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed five issues and, upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the aforesaid compensation. 6) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased, aged about 38 years, was a Rajmistri earning Rs. 20,000/- per month; however, the learned Tribunal has assessed his income at only Rs. 9,280/-, which warrants suitable enhancement. It is further submitted that there are 5 dependents in the family, and it is extremely difficult to sustain such a family on the meagre income assessed by the Tribunal. Hence, enhancement of compensation is prayed for. 7) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that just compensation has been awarded, considering the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time, in the absence of any other documentary evidence to establish the source of income. It is further submitted that no interference is warranted. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record. 9) Though learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has sought to contend that just compensation has been awarded, the same does not appear feasible in the prevailing cost of living for maintaining a family comprising four minor children. Considering the evidence available on record, it is evident that the deceased was a Rajmistri and that 5 dependents were relying upon his income, including his widow aged about 35 years, four minor children aged about 17 years, 10 years, 07 years and 04 years. The deceased was about 38 years of age at the time of the accident. Taking into account the nature of work, number of dependents, age of the deceased, date of accident, and the prevailing 4 minimum wages at the relevant time, this Court is of the view that the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering inflationary trends, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 12,000/-, which can safely be taken as a reasonable income for sustaining a family of 5 dependents. 10) 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 (1/4) 2,01,600/4= 50,400/- 6. Net Income 2,01,600-50,400= 1,51,200/- 7. Multiplier of 15 applied to assess total loss of dependency 1,51,200 X15= 22,68,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses as awarded by the Tribunal 16,500/- 9. Loss of estate as awarded by the Tribunal 16,500/- 10. Spousal Consortium to appellant No. 1 44,000/- 11 Parental Consortium to appellants No. 2 to 5 44,000x4 =1,76,000/- Total compensation 25,21,000/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 20,06,920/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced 5 to Rs. 25,21,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 20,06,920/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,14,080/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of claim appeal i.e. 09.07.2024. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12) 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 appellants No. 3 to 5 in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in any Nationalized Bank until they attain the age of majority. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be invested in the name of appellant No.1 & 2 in FDR in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. The balance amount shall be released to appellant No. 1 by way of bank transfer/account payee cheque. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyoti