1 MAC No. 32 of 2020 2026:CGHC:15744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 32 of 2020 1. Dashru Ram Markam S/o Shri Cheru Markam, Aged About 42 Years, Caste-Gond, Occupation- Unemployed; 2. Smt. Pramila Markam W/o Shri Dashru Ram Markam, Aged About 34 Years, Caste-Gond, Occupation- Housewife; Both Resident of Ward No. 13, Village- Kanglutola, Post- Gotatola P.S. And Tahsil - Mohla, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1. Puranik Lal Deshmukh S/o Shri Kedar Singh Deshmukh, Aged About 35 Years, Occupation- Driver, R/o Village- Deori (B) And Post - Vinayakpur, P.S. And Tahsil - Gunderdehi, District-Balod Chhattisgarh. 49122 (Driver of the Water Tanker vehicle No. CG -07-C-4780). 2. Amar Infrastructure Limited And Amar Builders (Near Jainam Palace Pulgaon- Durg) Through The Director- Surendra Rathi, S/o Lalchand Rathi, Aged About 47 Years, Occupation- Businessman, R/o Mahesh Colony Pulgaon, P.S.- Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of the Water Tanker vehicle No. CG -07-C-4780). 3. National Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office - Kamthi Line Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Insurare of the Water Tanker vehicle No. CG -07-C-4780). ... Respondents ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MAC No. 32 of 2020 For Appellants :- Mr. Raman Patel, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. S. S. Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 07.04.2026 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 13.02.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 83/2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of 9,37,200/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Sheshnarayan Markam. 2. Mr. Raman Patel, 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 ₹6,000/- per month which should be 7,930/- per month as per ₹ Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would also submit that amount under the head of consortium has not been given to the 3 MAC No. 32 of 2020 claimants. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Ms. Pooja Yadav, 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 6,000/- 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 7,930/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at ₹ relevant time) and 95,160/- per annum. Furthermore, the Claims ₹ Tribunal has not awarded amount under the head of consortium which is liable to be awarded. 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 4 MAC No. 32 of 2020 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 ₹6,0 00 x 12 = ₹ 72,000/- ₹7,930x 12 = 95,160/- ₹ 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% = ₹28,800/-; Total = ₹72,000+28,800= 1,00,800/- ₹ (+) 40% = 38,064 ₹ /-; Total = 95,160+38,064= ₹ 1,33,224/- ₹ 3. Deduction (-) ½ = 50,400/-; ₹ 1,00,800–50,400 = ₹ 50,400/- (total income) ₹ (-) ½ = 66,612/-; ₹ ₹1,33,224-66,612= 66,612/- (total income) ₹ 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 9,07,200/- ₹ (x) 18 = 11,99,016/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate ₹15,000/- 15,000/- ₹ 6. Funeral Expenses ₹15,000/- 15,000/- ₹ 7. Consortium NIL ₹40,000 x 2 = 80,000/- ₹ 8. Total ₹9,37,200 /- ₹13,09,016 /- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹9,37,200 /- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹13,09,016 /-. Hence, after deducting the amount of 9,37,200 ₹ /-, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of 3,71,816/- ₹ . The concerned respondent is directed to 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 MAC No. 32 of 2020 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 @7% 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