1 MAC No. 531 of 2022 2025:CGHC:45060 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 531 of 2022 1. Smt. Anuchhaya W/o Late Ajay Kumar Khadiya, Aged About 26 Years; 2. Minor Shameer Khadiya S/o Late Ajay Kumar Khadiya, Aged About 3 Years, Appellant No. 2 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anuchhaya, W/o Late Ajay Kumar Khadiya; Both are R/o Village Linjir, Post Office Lohar Singh, Tahsil Pusour District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Shameem Ansari S/o Mumtaj Ansari, Aged About 28 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Manchi Peshrar (Siram) Police Station Joban, District Lohardaga (Jharkhand) (Vehicle Driver). 2. S.V.S.N. Raju S/o Late S.N. Raju, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Flat No. 1/4, Block No. 02, First Floor Aalok Prite Apna Angan, Ghoda Bandha Telki Jamshedpur, (Jharkhand) (Vehicle Owner). 3. Branch Manager Go. Digit General Insurance Company Limited Fedral Complex First Floor Ram Mandir Ke Piche, Main Road Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. (Insurance Company) 4. Chandulal Khadiya S/o Mahettar Khadiya, Aged About 53 Years; ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.03 17:51:29 +0530 2 MAC No. 531 of 2022 5. Smt. Sumati Khediay W/o Chandulal Khediya, Aged About 51 Years; Respondents No.4 & 5 are R/o Village Linjir, Post Office Lohar Singh, Tahsil Pusour District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Respondents For Appellants :- Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 03.09.2025 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 07.12.2021 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 20/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 13,59,600/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Ajay Kumar Khadiya, who was a mason, aged about 32 years at the time of incident. The claimants/appellants herein are the wife and sons respectively, of the deceased. 2. Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in 3 MAC No. 531 of 2022 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 6,000/- 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 amount under the heads of consortium, liable to be enhanced. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Mr. Ashish Pandey, 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. 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 Ajay Kumar Khadiya to be 6,000/-, however, in the ₹ 4 MAC No. 531 of 2022 opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for mason, 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 is also 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 @ 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 ₹ 6,000 x 12 = ₹ 72,000/- ₹ 8,960 x 12 = 1,07,520/- ₹ 2. Future prospect (+) 40% = ₹28,800/- total income = ₹ 1,00,800/- (+) 40% = ₹ 43,008/- total income = ₹ 1,50,528/- 3. Deduction (- ) ¼ = 25,200/- ₹ ₹ 1,00,800 – 25,200= ₹ 75,600- (total income) (-) ¼ = 37,632/- ₹ ₹ 1,50,528 - 37,632 = 1,12,896/- (total ₹ income) 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = 12,09,600/- ₹ (x) 16 = 18,06,336/- ₹ 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 MAC No. 531 of 2022 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium 40,000x3 = 1,20,000/- ₹ 40,000 x 4 = 1,60,000/- ₹ Total ₹ 13,59,600/- ₹ 19,96,336/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹13,59,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹19,96,336/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹13,59,600/-, the appellants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹6,36,736/- . 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 @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 30.01.2021 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