1 MAC No. 1741 of 2019 2026:CGHC:15233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1741 of 2019 1. Ramsan S/o Dular Sai, Aged About 45 Years, Caste Rajwar; 2. Smt. Shyam Bai W/o Ramsan Das, Aged About 43 Years; 3. Smt. Anju W/o Late Pawan Kumar Rajwade, Aged About 20 Years; 4. Ku. Sunita D/o Late Pawan Kumar Rajwade, Aged About 5 Years; 5. Ku. Swikriti D/o Late Pawan Kumar Rajwade, Aged About 2 Years; Appellants No.4 & 5, Minor Through Mother appellant No.3, Smt. Anju, W/o Late Pawan Kumar Rajwade All R/o Majratola, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Ram Shrinagar Rajwade, S/o Heeralal Rajwade, Jhumarpara, Tehsil Surajpur P. S. Vishrampur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.........Claimants. ... Appellants versus 1. Branch Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Office No. 306, 3rd Floor, Mova, Raipur Near Over Bridge, Raipur Chhattisgarh.......Insurer. 2. Mangal Singh S/o Late Bandhan Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Shivnandanpur, P.S. Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh........(Driver). 3. Subhash Rajwade S/o Hoshla Prasad, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Batra, P.S. Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Owner). ... Respondents ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MAC No. 1741 of 2019 For Appellant :- Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 02.04.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 20.02.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, at Surapjpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 18/2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of 10,33,900/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Pawan Kumar Rajwade. 2. Mr. Pavas Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present cases. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased ₹4,500/- per month (including future prospect 40% 6,300) which ₹ should be 6,107/- per month (including future prospect 40% ₹ ₹8,549.8/-) as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh and also 3 MAC No. 1741 of 2019 under the heads of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would submit oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the claimants and submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records meticulously. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be ₹6,300/- (including future prospect 40%), however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be ₹8,549.8/- (including future prospect 40%) (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and ₹1,02,597.6/- per annum. Furthermore, the claims Tribunal has awarded less amount under the heads of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses less amount 4 MAC No. 1741 of 2019 has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is also liable to be enhanced. As such, the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced. 6. 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 & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income including 40% Future Prospect ₹6,300 x 12 = ₹ 75,600/- ₹ 8,549.8 x 12 = 1,02,597.6/- ₹ 2. Deduction (-) ¼ = 18,900/- ₹ 75,600–18,900 = ₹ 56,700/- ₹ (-) ¼ = 25,649.25/- ₹ ₹1,02,597.6-25,649.25= 76,948.35/- (total ₹ income) 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 9,63,900/- ₹ (x) 17 = 13,08,121.95/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate ₹15,000/- 18,000/- ₹ 6. Funeral Expenses ₹15,000/- 18,000/- ₹ 7. Consortium ₹40,000/- 44,000 x 5 = ₹ 2,20,000/- ₹ Total ₹10,33,900/ - ₹15,64,121.95 /- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 MAC No. 1741 of 2019 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹10,33,900/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹15,64,121.95 /-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹10,33,900/-, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of 5,30,221.95/- ₹ . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of 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. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit