1 MAC No. 1140 of 2019 CGHC010209412019 2026:CGHC:34073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1140 of 2019 1. Smt. Sulochana Mahobia W/o Gulab Mahobia, Aged About 45 Years, Occupation House Wife; 2. Gulab Mahobiya S/o Jhummuklal Mahobia ,Aged About 50 Years; Both are R/o Indira Chowk, Arang, Police Station And Post Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Chhavilal Yadav S/o Ram Singh Yadav, Aged About 22 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Daldali, Police Station Nuvapara, Tehsil And District Nuvapara Orissa, 766105. 2. Smt. Dandrajeet Kaur W/o Gurumukh Singh, Occupation Truck Owner, R/o Raipur, Road, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, 493445. 3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Pujari Park, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Policy No. 2309382343100082, Validity From 25-02- 2008 To 24-02-2009. ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Mansi Bandey, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MAC No. 1140 of 2019 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 05.08.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. 2. Considering the fact that claimants are villagers and used to reside in remote place, I am of the considered opinion to condone the delay of 2995 days in filing the instant MAC. 3. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), seeking enhancement in the compensation amount awarded by the impugned award dated 06.01.2011 passed by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 64/2009, whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed the claimants’ application and awarded ₹1,92,000/- along with interest. 5. Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding the less compensation. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased ₹3,000/- per month which should be ₹3,149/- per month as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, 3 MAC No. 1140 of 2019 Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that under the heads of future prospect consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be enhanced. 6. Ms. Mansi Bandey, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.3, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and same does not call for interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records minutely. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be ₹3,000/- 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 ₹3,149/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Furthermore, under the heads of future prospect consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be enhanced and also multiplier of 18 should be used in place of 10. 4 MAC No. 1140 of 2019 9. 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 Sethi 1, 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 ₹3,000 x 12 = ₹36,000/- ₹3,149 x 12 = ₹37,788/- 2. Future Prospect NIL (+)40% = ₹15,155.2/-; Total = ₹37,788+15,155.2= ₹52,943.2/- 3. Deduction (-) ½ = ₹18,000/-; ₹36,000-18,000= ₹18,000/- (-) ½ ₹26,471.6/-; ₹52,943.2-26,471.6= ₹26,471.6/-; round off ₹26,471/- 4. Multiplier (x) 10= ₹1,80,000/- (x) 18= ₹4,76,478/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹5,000/- ₹15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹2,000/- ₹15,000/- 7. Consortium ₹5,000/- ₹40,000 x 2 = ₹80,000/- Total ₹1,92,000/- ₹5,86,118/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹1,92,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹5,86,118/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹1,92,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 MAC No. 1140 of 2019 amount of ₹3,94,478/-. The concerned respondent 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 copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @6% 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. However, it is made clear that for the delayed period i.e. 2,995 days, the claimants would not be entitled for interest. 11.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