(MAC No.546/2020) CGHC010074182020 2026:CGHC:36321 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 546 of 2020 {Arising out of award dated 23-12-2019 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.436/2018} 1. Radheshyam, S/o Harchand Yadaw, aged about 50 years 2. Mahetarin Bai, W/o Radheshyam, aged about 47 years Both R/o Village Kadri, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Applicants) ... Appellants versus 1. Smt. Surekha Bai, Wd/o Late Bedprakash Yadaw, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Kadri, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Wife of the deceased Driver & Owner of the Vehicle Motor Cycle No.CG-12/AT-0496) 2. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Permanent Address – 3rd Floor, Guru Kripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of the Vehicle Motor Cycle No.CG-12/AT-0496) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 14/08/2026 SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.08.17 10:44:43 +0530 (MAC No.546/2020) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants herein/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 23-12-2019 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.436/2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 9,27,200/- as compensation for the death of Nand Kumar Yadav, aged about 23 years at the time of incident. The appellants herein/claimants are father and mother of deceased Nand Kumar Yadav, respectively. 2. The appeal filed on behalf of the Insurance Company being MAC No.303/2020 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Radheshyam and others) had already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20-4-2026 and thus, the liability of the Insurance Company has become final. 3. Mr. Anand Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that the deceased was running a Poultry Farm and he was earning ₹ 40,000/- to ₹ 45,000/- per month, thus, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income to be ₹ 8,450/- on the basis of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2021, whereas, it has been taken as ₹ 6,000/-, therefore, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. Page 3 of 5 (MAC No.546/2020) 4. Mr. Raj Awasthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal. 5. 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. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and was running a Poultry Farm and thus, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income to be ₹ 8,450/- on the basis of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2021, whereas, it has been taken as ₹ 6,000/-, therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Nand Kumar Yadav 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 ₹ 8,450/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). 8. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and was running a Poultry Farm, 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 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 (MAC No.546/2020) Verma & Ors. v. 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:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 6,000/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 6,000 x 12 = ₹ 72,000/-. ₹ 8,450/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 8,000 x 12 = ₹ 1,01,400/-. 2. Future Prospect 40% i.e. ₹ 28,800/-; ₹ 72,000 + 28,800 = ₹ 1,00,800/- 40% i.e. ₹ 40,560/-; ₹ 1,01,400 + 40,560 = ₹ 1,41,960/- 3. Deduction (-) ½ = ₹ 50,400/- ₹ 1,00,800 – 50,400 = ₹ 50,400/- (-) ½ = ₹ 70,980/- ₹ 1,41,960 – 70,980 = ₹ 70,980/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = ₹ 9,07,200/- (x) 18 = ₹ 12,77,640/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium NIL ₹ 44,000/- x 2 = ₹ 88,000/- Total ₹ 9,27,200/- ₹ 13,98,640/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 9,27,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 13,98,640/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 9,27,200/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 4,71,440/-. 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 a 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 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.546/2020) Tribunal i.e. 22-6-2018 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. 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 Soma