(MAC No.1324/2019) 2026:CGHC:14323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1324 of 2019 {Arising out of award dated 8-5-2019 passed by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.563/2017} The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office – In front of Rajeev Plaza, Rama Trade Center, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company of Car No.CG-07/AV-3540) ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Indu Soni, Age 36 years, W/o Late Malik Ram Soni. 2. Sanjana Soni, Age 8 years, D/o Late Malik Ram Soni 3. Purnima Soni, Age 2 years, D/o Late Malik Ram Soni Respondent No.2 and 3 Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt. Indu Soni, W/o Late Malik Ram Soni All R/o Ward No.2, Near High School, Kududand, Thana Civil Line, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 4. Mojesh Kumar Rai, S/o Late M.M. Rai, R/o Mission Compound, Jarhabhatha, Thana Civil Line, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner and Driver of Car No.CG-07/AV-3540) (Owner and Driver) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Shashank Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan and Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocates. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.03.27 17:42:22 +0530 (MAC No.1324/2019) Judgment on Board 25/03/2026 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 8-5-2019 passed by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.563/2017, by which a compensation of ₹ 9,88,274/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein. 2. Cross-objection has also been filed on behalf of the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 3 herein. 3. The appellant herein/Insurance Company has questioned the award on the ground that 1/3 ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses instead of ¼ and future prospects ought to have been taken as 25% instead of 30% and negligence of the driver/ owner has not been established. 4. Mr. Shashank Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, would submit that just and proper compensation has not been awarded to the claimants and the compensation awarded to the claimants is on higher side. 5. Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal and also submit that just and proper compensation has been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. He would further submit that the deceased was a Labour and the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly (MAC No.1324/2019) income to be ₹ 8,750/- on the basis of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2021, whereas, it has been taken as ₹ 5,606/, therefore, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Since the claimants are only three in number being wife and two minor daughters of deceased Malik Ram Soni, deduction would be 1/3 in place of ¼ and future prospects would be 25% in place of 30%. However, negligence has been duly established in view of the material available on record. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Insurance Company are allowed. However, taking into consideration that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Malim Ram Soni to be ₹ 5,606/-, but, 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 ₹ 8,750/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). As such, I hold that the fact of accident and negligence has duly been proved by the claimants and thus, in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 (MAC No.1324/2019) Ram & Ors3, the claimants will be entitled for the following compensation as calculated herein-below:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 5,606/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 5,606 x 12 = ₹ 67,272/-. ₹ 8,750/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 8,750 x 12 = ₹ 1,05,000/-. 2. Future Prospect (+) 30% i.e. ₹ 20,182; total yearly income = ₹ 67,272 + 20,182 = ₹ 87,454/-. (+) 25% i.e. ₹ 26,250; total yearly income = ₹ 1,05,000 + 26,250 = ₹ 1,31,250/-. 3. Deduction (-) ¼ = ₹ 21,863/- ₹ 87,454 – 21,863 = ₹ 65,591/- (-) 1/3 = ₹ 43,750/- ₹ 1,31,250 – 43,750 = ₹ 87,500/- 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = ₹ 9,18,274/- (x) 14 = ₹ 12,25,000/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 40,000/- x 3 = ₹ 1,20,000/- Total ₹ 9,88,274/- ₹ 13,75,000/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 9,88,274/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is ultimately enhanced to ₹ 13,75,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 9,88,274/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 3,86,726/-. The concerned party as directed by the learned Claims Tribunal is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 25-9-2017 till its 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.1324/2019) realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. Consequently, the appeal filed on behalf of the Insurance Company and the cross-objection filed on behalf of the claimants, both, are partly allowed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma