1 MAC No. 543 of 2023 2025:CGHC:49277 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 543 of 2023 1. Smt. Shakun Bai W/o Durga Prasad Jagat, Aged About 43 Years; 2. Durga Prasad Jagat S/o Dasarath Jagat, Aged About 46 Years; Both are R/o Semrapara Rabeli, Police Station and Tahsil - Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Ravishankar Gadhewal S/o Ramchandra Gadhewal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Bharni, Police Station - Sakri, Tahsil - Sakri, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle). 2. Kashmiri Lal Bhargav S/o Johan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village - Ghanapara Ghutku, Tahsil Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle). 3. TATA A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Officer First Floor Galaxy Height, Vyapar Vihar, By The Side Of Sanjay Apartment, Police Station - Tarbahar, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle). ... Respondents For Appellants :- Ms. Laxmi Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 25.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.26 10:45:11 +0530 2 MAC No. 543 of 2023 appellants/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 15.12.2022 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 913/21, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 12,95,672/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Dhaniram Jagat, aged about 21 years at the time of incident. 2. Ms. Laxmi Gupta, 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 8,060/- per month which should be 9,000/- as per ₹ ₹ Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. She would also submit that under the head of consortium less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for respondent No.1, would submit that the driver is not liable to pay compensation. 3 MAC No. 543 of 2023 4. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.3, would submit that the appellant has 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. 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 to be 8,060/-, 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 9,000/- (as per minimum wages ₹ prescribed at relevant time) and ₹1,08,000/- per annum. Moreover, under the head of consortium amount less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, the compensation amount is 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 4 MAC No. 543 of 2023 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 ₹ 8,060 x 12 = ₹ 96,720/- ₹ 9,000 x 12 = 1,08,000/- ₹ 2. Future prospect (+) 40% = ₹38,688/- total income = ₹ 1,35,408/- (+) 40% = ₹ 43,200/- total income = ₹ 1,51,200/- 3. Deduction (-) ½ = 67,704/- ₹ ₹ 1,35,408 – 67,704= ₹ 67,704/- (total income) (-) ½ = 75,600/- ₹ ₹ 1,51,200 – 75,600 = 75,600/- (total income) ₹ 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 12,18,672/- ₹ (x) 18 = 13,60,800/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate ₹16,500/- 16,500/- ₹ 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- 7. Consortium ₹44,000/- 88,000/- ₹ Total ₹ 12,95,672/- ₹ 14,81,800/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹12,95,672/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹14,81,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹12,95,672/-, the appellant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of 1,86,128/- ₹ . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 MAC No. 543 of 2023 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% 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. 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