1 2025:CGHC:44422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 809 of 2019 1 - Smt. Nirmala W/o Lt. Buddheswer Bairagi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post- Mandhar, P.S.- Vidhnsabha, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Hemlata D/o Late Buddheswar Bairagi Aged About 21 Years R/o Village And Post- Mandhar, P.S.- Vidhnsabha, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/claimants versus 1 - Omkar S/o Late Bharat Singh Chandraker Junior Engineer, Housewe No.86, Street No. 4, Kadambari Nagar Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver And Owner Of Car Bearing Registration No. Cg-07 A.E. -0806), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Divisional Manager (Division No.1) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents {Cause title is taken from Case Information System} For Appellants. : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 01/09/2025 1. This is claimants’ appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'MV Act, 1988') for enhancement of compensation 2 awarded by Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 413/2017 vide award dated 29th October, 2018. 2. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,20,000/- in favour of the appellants/claimants as compensation on account of death of Budhheshwar Bairagi in an unfortunate road accident that occurred on 24.04.2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Car) bearing registration No. CG-07-A.E.-0806 by its driver - cum-owner/ respondent No.1. The said offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company. 3. The appellants/claimants, who are unfortunate wife & daughter of deceased – Buddheshwar Bairagari, had filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.21,30,000/-. As per pleadings made in the claim application, deceased – Buddheshwar Bairagi used to earn Rs.10,000/- by working as Labour in the Rajendra Steel Company. The appellants/claimants are dependent upon the deceased, therefore, aforesaid amount of compensation has been claimed. Respondent No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle resisted the claim application on various grounds whereas Respondent No. 2 / insurance company took a plea that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 4. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded afore-stated compensation in favour of the claimants, fastening liability of payment of compensation upon 3 respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Claims Tribunal has legally erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 60,000/- per annum whereas deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as Labour in Rajendra Steel Company. Further, the amount in respect of filial consortium has not been awarded to the appellant No. 2/claimant – daughter of the deceased and, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded low amount of compensation, which deserves to be enhanced suitably. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Insurance Company while supporting the impugned award would submit that appellants/claimants have failed to prove income of the deceased by adducing any documentary evidence in this regard, therefore, after proper appreciation of evidence & material available on record, income of the deceased has rightly been assessed by the Claims Tribunal and thereby awarded just & proper compensation to the claimants, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 8. The Claims Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/- per annum. According to the pleading made by appellants/claimants, deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- by working as Labour in Rajendra Steel Company. Of course, no documentary evidence has been filed to substantiate the pleading in respect of monthly income of the deceased. However, if the 4 deceased was said to be Labour in Rajendra Steel Company, he must be getting minimum wages as per Minimum Wages Act. Apart from this, appellants, who are widow & daughter of deceased, are dependent upon him. Thus, looking to the rate of inflation, nature of job and minimum wage prevailing at the relevant point of time, this Court is inclined to assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-per month. Further, The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards filial consortium to appellant No. 2/daughter of deceased, therefore, in my opinion, the appellant No. 2 is also held entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium. 9. In view of above and taking guidance from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court hereby computes the compensation in the following manner - 1 Monthly salary Rs.6,000/- 2 Future prospects 25% (6,000 + 1,500) Rs. 7,500/- 3 Yearly income (7,500x12) Rs.90,000/- 4 1/3th deduction for personal expenses (90,000-30,000) Rs.60,000/- 5. Multiplier of 13 (60,000 X 13) Rs.7,80,000/- 6. Spousal Consortium + +Rs.70,000/- 5 Funeral expenses + loss of Estate 7. Filial Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to appellant No. 2) +Rs.40,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.8,90,000/- 10.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 7,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 8,90,000/-. The appellants are entitled for a further sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- over and above the amount of Rs. 7,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The above enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of appeal i.e. 15.04.2019 till its actual payment. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award stands modified to the above extent. 11.The respondent No. 2/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted 60 days' time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- along with interest before the concerned Tribunal. After depositing the enhanced amount of compensation by respondent No.2/insurance company, learned Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate order for apportionment, investment and disbursement. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.09 18:17:04 +0530