MAC/2547/2025 of SMT. BASANTI BAI Vs PRADEEP KUMAR SAHU on 30 September 2026

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 1.11.2025, passed in Claim Case No.930/2020 by learned 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.14,92,800/- as compensation for the death of Vinay Kumar Banjare who was aged about 18 years and died in a road accident which took place on 30.09.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a lesser amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side. The deceased was working as a cook at Pahuna Dhaba and Restaurant and was earning Rs. 700/- per day as per the income certificate (Annexure P-11). The owner of Pahuna Dhaba, Mr. Kuleshwar Sharma (AW-3), was also examined before the Tribunal, who has supported the aforesaid fact. She further submits that the Tribunal has also awarded a lesser amount under other conventional heads, which deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, the instant appeal may be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company would submit that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly awarded the compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference.

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. On perusal of the statement of Kuleshwar Sharma (AW-3), it is found that he has not submitted any document to show that he was running a Dhaba and Restaurant. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that for carrying on the business of running a Dhaba and Restaurant, it is required to obtain a Gumasta License or a license under the Shops and Establishments Act. He has not produced any account books of the Dhaba/Restaurant. He has also admitted that he has not produced any attendance register or salary register to show as to how many persons were working and how much salary was being paid to them. He has further admitted that for issuing a certificate, he uses a letter-head bearing registration number, whereas Ex.P-11 issued by him is neither on a letter-head nor does it bear any registration number. He has also admitted that before recording his statement before the Tribunal, he had met an advocate who had told him about the subject on which he had to depose. He has also admitted that he issued income certificate (Ex.P-11) on the request of the mother of the deceased. In this way, there is nothing on record to show on what basis Kuleshwar Sharma was running the

Dhaba/Restaurant and that the deceased was working under him and was earning Rs. 700/- per day. Considering the evidence on record, on the date of the accident i.e. 30.09.2023, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 9,960/- per month.

6. It is true that the learned Tribunal in other conventional heads assessed Rs.1,32,000/- which ought to be 1,80,000/-, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified.

7. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court

Income Rs. 9000x12= 1,08,000/- Rs. 9960 x 12 = 1,19,520/-

2. Future prospect +)40% (i.e. Rs. 43,200) = 1,51,200/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 47,808) = 1,67,328/-

3. Deduction (-)

(i.e. 75600) = 75,600/- (-) 1/2 (i.e. 83664) = 83,664/-

4. Multiplier

(x) 18 =

(x) 18 =

(2017) 16 SCC 680

(2009) 6 SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130

13,60,800/- 15,05,952/-

5. Other conventional heads Rs. 1,32,000/- Rs. 1,80,000/- (18000+18000+144

Total Rs. 14,92,800/- Rs. 16,85,952/-

8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.14,92,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.16,85,952/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.14,92,800/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,93,152/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Appellant No.3 – Ku. Sakshi shall also be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 48,000/- out of the total award amount. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

10. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides.

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham