1 2026:CGHC:18964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 657 of 2022 1 - Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Dan (Masih) Christ Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Vishrampur, Thana Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, Hall Mukam F 203, R.D.A. Colony Boriyakhurd, Thana Tikrapara , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jyoti Rajendra Masih W/o Shri Rajendra (Masih) Christ Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Vishrampur, Thana Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, Hall Mukam F 203, R.D.A. Colony Boriyakhurd, Thana Tikrapara , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jyotsna S/o Rajendra Kumar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Vishrampur, Thana Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, Hall Mukam F 203, R.D.A. Colony Boriyakhurd, Thana Tikrapara , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Ruksingh Sidhar S/o Shri Manraj Sidhar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post Marmitikra Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07 / A. / 1652 ) (Driver), District : Jashpur, C.G. 2 - Smt. Raunak Khatoon W/o Shamshad Alam Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Limdihi, Khairpur, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07 / A. / 1652 ) (Owner) 3 - Yogesh Banjare S/o Shyam Lal Banjara Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Madanpur Kenabhatha, And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Registered Possession Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07 / A. / 1652 ) (Owner) 4 - Through Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Address Maruti Heights 4th Floor G.E. Road Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07 / A. / 1652 ) (Insurer) ... Respondents AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.30 18:34:24 +0530 2 For Appellants : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 For Respondent No. 4 : [ : None present, though served. Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth, “MV Act, 1988”) is to an award dated 04.03.2022 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G) (for short, “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 429 of 2018. 2. By the impugned award, against the total compensation of Rs. 50,50,000/- claimed by the unfortunate father, mother, sister and grandmother of deceased Rakesh Kumar by filing application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’), the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,05,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment in favour of the claimants on account of his death in the motor accident that occurred on 04.04.2018 due to rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 07-A 1652 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and possession holder respondent No. 3 and insured with the respondent No. 4. 3. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, the deceased, aged about 28 years, who died in the said 3 accident, was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month by transporting business owing a Truck. Thus, the above-stated amount of compensation was claimed by the appellants / claimants. 4. The claim application was resisted by the respective respondents on various counts including Insurance Company taking a plea of violation of terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy. 5. The Tribunal has framed issues and on assessment of the evidence available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded aforesaid compensation in favour of the appellants/claimants. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has certainy erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-, as the deceased was owner of the truck and was paying Rs.18,600/- per month as installment of the Truck, thus, income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs. 30,000/- per month, thus, amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may be enhanced suitably. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 while opposing the submissions made by counsel for the appellants would submit that the since no documentary evidence has been adduced by the claimants regarding the actual income of the deceased, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/-, which does not require any interference in this appeal, hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 9. The sole point for determination before this Court is whether the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation in favour of the claimants or compensation is required to be enhanced by this Court ? 10. As per pleading made in the claim application, the deceased owned a truck registered in his name and was engaged in the transport business, from which he earned ₹30,000 per month. According to the evidence and pleadings made in the instant claim application, the deceased was paying a sum of ₹18,600 per month to the finance company as installments for the said truck. This finding has also been recorded by the Claims Tribunal in its impugned award. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per months, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is on lower side, as he is paying ₹18,600 per month to the finance company as installments for the said truck. Thus, it seems that naturally deceased could have earned more than that and after installment was being paid to the Finance Company as installments for the said truck, he must be contributed certain amount for livelihood of his family. As such, in the facts & circumstances of the case, I propose to recompute the amount of compensation by assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/ per month. 11. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A)Loss of Income/dependency 12,000 x 12 = : Rs.17,13,600/- 5 14,4000/- (B)Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (14,4000/- x 40% =57,600/-) 14,4000+ 57,600 = 2,01,600/- (C) Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (2,01,600- x 1/2 =) 2,01,600 – 10,08,00/- = 10,08,00/- (D) Multiplier of 17 10,08,00 x 17 = 17,13,600/- 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of estate : (+) Rs. 15,000/- 4. Loss of filial consortium to claimants/appellants (+) Rs. 80,000/- Total compensation Rs. 18,23,600/- 12. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 15,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 18,23,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 15,05,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,18,000/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of filing of claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 6 13. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from today, on such deposit being made, two F.D. of Rs. 1.5 lacs for a period of two years shall be made in the name of appellants No. 1 & 2 namely Rajendra Kumar and Jyoti Rajendra Masih and remaining amount shall be disbursed to the appellant No. 2. 14. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami