(MAC No.35/2023) 2025:CGHC:46288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 35 of 2023 1. Smt. Uma Bai, Wd/o Late Shri Rajendra Rakesh, Aged about now 31 years 2. Chintamani, S/o Late Shri Rajendra Rakesh, Aged about now 4 years Appellant No.2 through Natural Guardian mother Smt. Uma Bai R/o Deen Dayal Colony, Mangla, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Durgesh Sahu, S/o Shri Kanhaiyya Sahu, Aged about now 28 years, R/o Village Tendua, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Driver) 2. M/s. Shivangi Oil Private Limited, Through-Santosh Kumar Singhania, Plot No.18/19/32/39 Industrial Area, Sirguitty, Police Station Sirguitty, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Owner) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar-Vihar, In front of Amar Automobile, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company) (Non-applicants) 4. Purnima Kahar, D/o Ghasiram Rakesh, Aged about now 32 years, 5. Ghasiram Rakesh, S/o Late Shri Dhansai, Aged about now 68 years, SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.09.11 17:55:08 +0530 (MAC No.35/2023) Respondent No.4 and 5 both R/o Deen Dayal Colony, Mangla, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No. 3 to 5) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 10/09/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) has been preferred by the appellants herein/claimants No.1 & 2 seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 20-7-2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.1339/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 18,75,880/- as compensation for the death of Rajendra Rakesh, who was working as Security Guard, aged about 36 years at the time of incident. The appellants herein/claimants No.1 & 2 are wife and son, respectively, of deceased Rajendra Rakesh. 2. Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants No.1 & 2, would submit that the deceased was working as Security Guard in M/s. Shivangi Oil Mill Private Limited, Sirgitti, Bilaspur, which is uncontroverted and the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have (MAC No.35/2023) taken his monthly income to be ₹ 10,000/- on the basis of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2021, whereas, it has been taken as ₹ 8,920/-, therefore, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 3. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal. 4. 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. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Rajendra Rakesh to be ₹ 8,920/-, 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 ₹ 10,000/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and ₹ 1,20,000/- per annum. 6. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was working as Security Guard in M/s. Shivangi Oil Mill Private Limited, Sirgitti, Bilaspur, 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 Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 (MAC No.35/2023) 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 ₹ 8,920 x 12 = ₹ 1,07,040/- ₹ 10,000 x 12 = ₹ 1,20,000/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 42,816; total income = ₹ 1,07,040 + 42,816 = ₹ 1,49,856/- (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 48,000; total income = ₹ 1,20,000 + 48,000 = ₹ 1,68,000/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ = ₹ 37,464/- ₹ 1,49,856 – 37,464 = ₹ 1,12,392/- (total income) (-) ¼ = ₹ 42,000/- ₹ 1,68,000 – 42,000 = ₹ 1,26,000/- (total income) 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = ₹ 16,85,880/- (x) 15 = ₹ 18,90,000/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 40,000 x 4 = ₹ 1,60,000/- ₹ 44,000 x 4 = ₹ 1,76,000/- Total ₹ 18,75,880/- ₹ 20,96,000/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 18,75,880/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 20,96,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 18,75,880/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 2,20,120/-. 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 @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.35/2023) application before the Tribunal i.e. 21-11-2019 till its realisation. 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 Soma