1 2026:CGHC:19933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1914 of 2019 1 - Narendra Tiwari S/o Late Shri Pitambar Tiwari Aged About 48 Years Caste - Brahmin, R/o Railway Station Road, Bishrampur, P.S. Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh....(Claimant), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.......(Insurance Company), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Kumar Rajwade S/o Jawahir Rajwade Aged About 23 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Parsapara, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil And District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh.....(Motorcyclist/ Driver), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pramod Rajwade S/o Gopeshwar Rajwade Aged About 30 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village Parsapara, P.S. - Jainagar, Tahsil And District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh....(Owner), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. BN Nande, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 29/04/2026 1. The appellant/claimant has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.04.30 16:10:29 +0530 2 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 29.8.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur District Surajpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.107/2018 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.4,57,623/- has been fastened on the Insurance Company. In the present Appeal, the appellant/claimant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in assessing the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/- whereas as per minimum wages at the relevant point of time, his monthly income should have been assessed at Rs.9,500/-. As such, the impugned award may be modified accordingly. 3. On the other hand, Mr. BN Nande, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/- per month, whereas as per the minimum 3 wages at the relevant point of time, monthly income of the appellant should have been assessed at Rs.9500/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the minimum wages at the relevant point of time, it would be appropriate to enhance award amount by taking monthly income of the appellant at Rs.9500/-. As such, the claimant will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this Court:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.4500/- x 4 = Rs.18,000/- Rs.9500 x 6 = Rs.57,000/- 2. Attendant Rs.13,500/- Rs.54,000/- 3. Treatment & medication Rs.4,06,123/- Rs.4,06,123/- 4. Pain & suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.50,000/- 5. Transportation & Nutrition Rs.10,000/- Rs.50,000/- 6. Future medical treatment - Rs.25,000/- 7. Loss of amenities of life - Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.4,57,623/- Rs.6,92,123/- 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹4,57,623/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹6,92,123/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹4,57,623/-, the claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹2,34,500/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of 4 compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I do not find any good ground to entertain the cross-objection filed by respondent No.1 herein. 8. With the aforesaid modifications, the Appeal is disposed of and cross-objection filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve