1 2025:CGHC:47848 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 677 of 2019 1. Bhagwati W/o Late Baleshwar Aged About 38 Years R/o Rajeev Nagar, (Thusekela), Tehsil And Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Radhika D/o Late Baleshwar, Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother, Bhagwati, W/o Late Baleshwar, R/o Rajeev Nagar, (Thusekela), Tehsil And Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Saroj D/o Late Baleshwar Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother, Bhagwati, W/o Late Baleshwar, R/o Rajeev Nagar, (Thusekela), Tehsil And Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Manoj S/o Late Baleshwar Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother, Bhagwati, W/o Late Baleshwar, R/o Rajeev Nagar, (Thusekela), Tehsil And Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. Gajlal S/o Nohar Sai Uravon Aged About 63 Years R/o Village - (Thusekela), Tehsil And Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. Mankunwar W/o Gajlal Uravon Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - (Thusekela), Tehsil And Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Digamber Lal Satnami S/o Late Parash Satnami Aged About 39 Years R/o Chadmari, Turipara, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Shyam Bai Chauhan W/o Sitaram Chauhan Aged About 43 Years R/o Rampur, Raigarh Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. National Insurance Company Limited Mandal Xv, National Insurance Bhawan, 8, India Exchange Place, 1st Floor, Kolkata West Bengal 700001. (Insurance Company), District : Kolkata, West Bengal ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.22 18:19:50 +0530 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate along with Mr. Sourabh Burman, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17. 09.2025 1. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No. 24/2012 dated 11.05.2015, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 5,86,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per anum. 2. Mr. Amit Sharma, counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that Baleshwar, who was husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 to 4 died in road accident on 16.10.2011, the driver of offending Maruti car bearing registration No. CG 13 C 4613 by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased, consequently, he sustained injuries and died during course of treatment in the hospital. Mr. Sharma would further submit that at the time of death of the deceased his age was 40 years and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. He would also submit that learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at lower side and failed to award compensation for future prospect; for loss of consortium. He would pray to enhance the compensation., 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Ashish Gupta would submit that earning of unskilled labour in the year 2011, according to the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, was Rs. 4,277/-, but the learned Tribunal has assessed it Rs. 6,000/- per month. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award and the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate would support the contention made by Mr. Gupta. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Perusal of the impugned award would make it clear that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased properly and that part does not requires interference by this Court. The learned Tribunal has not passed award for future prospect. The deceased was non-salaried labour and his age was 40 years at the time of incident; therefore, he would be entitled to get additional sum of 25% on the head of future prospect. The learned Tribunal has committed an error by applying multiplier of 12, whereas, according to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 it should be 15. The learned Tribunal has not passed award for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses according to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & others and (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma (supra), this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 6,000 x12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 6,000 x12 = Rs. 72,000/- 2. Future Prospect NIL (25%) = Rs. 18,000/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 Rs. 24,000/- (-) 1/3 Rs. 30,000/- 4 Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 60,000/- 4. Multiplier (x) 12 = Rs. 5,76,000/- (x) 15 = Rs. 9,00,000/- 5. Loss of Estate NIL Rs. 21,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 21,000/- 7. Loss of Spousal Consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 5000/- Rs. 56,000/- 8. Loss of Parental consortium(for appellant No. 2) NIL Rs. 56,000/- 9. Loss of Parental consortium(for appellant No. 3) NIL Rs. 56,000/- 10. Loss of Parental consortium(for appellant No. 4) NIL Rs. 56,000/- TOTAL Rs. 5,86,000/- Rs. 11,66,000/- 8. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 5,86,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 11,66,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 5,86,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,80,000/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 9.Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant