1 MAC No. 335 of 2022 2025:CGHC:44737 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 335 of 2022 1. Smt. Roopa Bai Nishad Wd/o Late Mahesh Kumar Nishad, Aged About 32 Years; 2. Ku. Tripti Nishad D/o Late Mahesh Kumar Nishad, Aged About 8 Years; 3. Virnarayan Nishad D/o Late Mahesh Kumar Nishad, Aged About 4 Years; 4. Lakshay Nishad D/o Late Mahesh Kumar Nishad, Aged About 3 Years; Appellants No. 2 to 4 are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Roopa Bai Nishad. All are R/o Village Old Karela, Ward No. 2, Post Dhara, Through P.S. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ….(Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Raju @ Lala Kaushik S/o Punni Lal Kaushik, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village and Post Bahatarai, P.S. Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --(Driver) 2. Surendra Kumar Kaushik S/o Nakched Prasad Kaushik, R/o Village Chhatauna, Ward No. 14, Mandalpara, Post Hirri Mines, P.S. Hirri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --(Owner) ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.03 10:50:30 +0530 2 MAC No. 335 of 2022 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rama Trade Centre 1st floor, Near Bus Stand, Behind Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Through Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Beside LIC Office, Near Railway Station Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --(Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellants :- Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :- Mr. S.P. Sahu, 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 02.09.2025 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 compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 08/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 9,77,200/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Mahesh Kumar Nishad, who was a labour and agriculturist, aged about 32 years at the time of incident. The claimants/appellants herein are the wife, daughter and sons, respectively, of the deceased. 3 MAC No. 335 of 2022 2. Mr. P.R. Patankar, 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. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as 4,500/- per month which should be 8,960/- as per ₹ ₹ Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that under the heads of consortium, estate and funeral expenses are liable to be enhanced. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, 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. Mr. S.P. Sahu, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and submit that respondents No.1 & 2 are not liable to pay compensation to the appellants. 4 MAC No. 335 of 2022 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Mahesh Kumar Nishad to be 4,500/-, however, in the ₹ opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for labour, the monthly income of the deceased should be ₹8,960/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and 1,07,520/- per annum. Moreover, amount ₹ under the head of consortium, estate and funeral expenses is also liable to be enhanced. 7. 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:- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 MAC No. 335 of 2022 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income ₹ 4,500 x 12 = ₹ 54,000/- ₹ 8,960 x 12 = 1,07,520/- ₹ 2. Future prospect (+) 40% = ₹21,600/- total income = ₹ 75,600/- (+) 40% = ₹ 43,008/- total income = ₹ 1,50,528/- 3. Deduction (- ) ¼ = 18,900/- ₹ ₹ 75,600 - 18,900 = ₹ 56,700- (total income) (-) ¼ = 37,632/- ₹ ₹ 1,50,528 - 37,632 = 1,12,896/- (total ₹ income) 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = 9,07,200/- ₹ (x) 16 = 18,06,336/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 18,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 18,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹40,000/- 48,000 x 4 = ₹ 1,92,000/- ₹ Total ₹ 9,77,200/- ₹ 20,34,336/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹9,77,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹20,34,336/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹9,77,200/-, the appellants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹10,57,136- . 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. 12.01.2021 till its realization. 6 MAC No. 335 of 2022 Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. 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