1 MAC No. 325 of 2022 2025:CGHC:46875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 325 of 2022 1. Pratap Singh S/o Nandlal, Aged About 60 Years; 2. Ku. Shilaja D/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 17 Years; The Appellant No.2 is Minor, Through Natural Guardian Her Father Pratap Singh. Both R/o Village Chainpur, Block Pali, Tahsil Hardibajar District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Sunil Suman S/o Basant Lal Suman, Aged About 26 Years, (Driver); 2. Smt. Sabita Suman W/o Basant Lal Suman, Aged About 43 Years; Both R/o - House No. 181, Munghapara, Ward No.4 Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Insurer). ... Respondents For Appellants :- Ms. Nilu Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 :- Mr. U.R. Koshaley, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 12.09.2025 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 ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.15 10:54:05 +0530 2 MAC No. 325 of 2022 compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 20.12.2021 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 22/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 7,94,600/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Smt. Rekahs Bai, who was a working as a labour and also doing works related to tailoring Supervisor in private sector, aged about 25 years at the time of incident. 2. Ms. Nilu Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. She would also submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as 4,000/- per month which should be 8,600/- as per ₹ ₹ Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. She would further submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding the age of the deceased was 26 years, though the same has been appeared 25 years from the merg intimation (Ex.P/3), post-mortem report (Ex.P/7) and therefore multiplier of 18 would be applicable in the present case. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and 3 MAC No. 325 of 2022 the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Ms. Swati Agrawal, and Mr. U.R. Koshaley, learned counsel for the respective respondents, would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence and also the age of the deceased, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. 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 Ajay Kumar Khadiya to be 4,000/-, 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 ₹8,600/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and 1,03,200/- per annum. Moreover, the Claims Tribunal has ₹ erred in holding the age of the deceased to be 26 years at the 4 MAC No. 325 of 2022 time of incident though the same is apparent from Exs.P/3, P/6 & P/7, that the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of incident. 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 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 ₹ 4,000 x 12 = ₹ 48,000/- ₹ 8,600 x 12 = 1,03,200/- ₹ 2. Future prospect (+) 40% = ₹19,200/- total income = ₹ 67,200/- (+) 40% = ₹ 41,280/- total income = ₹ 1,44,480/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 = 22,400/- ₹ ₹ 67,200 – 22,400= ₹ 44,800/- (total income) (-) 1/3 = 48,160/- ₹ ₹ 1,44,480 – 48,160 = 96,320/- (total income) ₹ 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 7,61,600/- ₹ (x) 18 = 17,33,760/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- Total ₹ 7,94,600/- ₹ 17,66,760/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 MAC No. 325 of 2022 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹7,94,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹17,66,760/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹7,94,600/-, the appellants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹9,72,160/- . 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 @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 16.03.2020 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