1 MAC No. 55 of 2023 2025:CGHC:44051 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 55 of 2023 1. Kalpana Rai W/o Tushar Kantirai, Aged About 47 Years; (wrongly mentioned as father) 2. Tushar Kantirai S/o Sudhir Ram, Aged About 54 Years; 3. Varsha Rai D/o Late Tushar Kantirai, Aged About 19 Years; All are R/o House No. 116/03, Dipapara, Post and District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Appellants/Applicants versus 1. Shiva Chauhan @ Sanu S/o Jagdish Chauhan, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Kedar, Police Station Kedar, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) At Present Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Car No. JH-10-AC- 5767) 2. Ratan Kumar Sahu S/o Tulsi Sao, R/o Sunaina Apartment, Kali Mandir Road, Lalpur Road, Ranchi, Nawagarh, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) (Owner Of The Vehicle Car No. JH-10- AC- 5767). 3. Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, R/o 1st Floor, KH No. 730/2, D2PH No. 22, Ward No. 30, Rani Laxmi Nagar, Near Rama Magneto Mall, ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.08.30 12:15:45 +0530 2 MAC No. 55 of 2023 Indusind Bank Bilaspur- 495001 (Insurer Of The Vehicle Car No. JH-10-AC-5767). ... Respondents/Non-applicants For Appellants :- Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 29.08.2025 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 15.09.2022 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 1561/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 11,90,840/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Tanmay Rai @ Topu, who was an unskilled labour, aged about 28 years at the time of incident. The claimants/appellants herein are the mother, father and sister, respectively, of the deceased. 2. Mr. Anand Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in 3 MAC No. 55 of 2023 awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as 7,800/- per month which should be 9,800/- ₹ ₹ as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under the head of ‘consortium’ which is required to be enhanced and, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for the 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 MAC No. 55 of 2023 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 Shubham Sahu to be 7,800/-, however, in the ₹ opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour, the monthly income of the deceased should be 9,800/- (as per ₹ minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and 1,17,600/- per annum. Moreover, a sum of 44,000/- ₹ ₹ under the head of ‘consortium’ to the claimants/appellants 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 Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 MAC No. 55 of 2023 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 ₹ 7,800 x 12 = ₹ 93,600/- ₹ 9,800 x 12 = 1,17,600/- ₹ 2. Future prospect (+) 40% = ₹37,440/- total income = ₹ 1,31,040/- (+) 40% = ₹ 47,040/- total income = ₹ 1,64,640/- 3. Deduction (-) ½ = 65,520/- ₹ ₹ 1,31,040 - 65,520 = ₹ 65,520/- (total income) (-) ½ = 82,320/- ₹ ₹ 1,64,640 - 82,320 = 82,320/- (total income) ₹ 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 11,13,840/- ₹ (x) 17 = 13,99,440/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹44,000/- ₹44,000 x2 = 88,000/- ₹ Total ₹ 11,90,840/- ₹ 15,20,440/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹11,90,840/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹15,20,440/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹11,90,840/-, the appellants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹3,29,600/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 MAC No. 55 of 2023 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 i.e. 25.10.2021 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