1 2025:CGHC:48523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 817 of 2019 1. Pramila Kunwar W/o Late Amresh Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Housewife, R/o Village - Pathariya, Post - Banka, Police Station Meral, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand) At Present Address Village Revti C/o Asrafi Sao, Tahsil Prartappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Rahit Prasad Gupta S/o Late Amresh Prasad Gupta Aged About 21 Years Occupation - Student, R/o Village - Pathariya, Post - Banka, Police Station Meral, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand) At Present Address Village Revti C/o Asrafi Sao, Tahsil Prartappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Rahul Kumar Gupta S/o Late Amresh Prasad Gupta Aged About 19 Years Occupation - Student, R/o Village - Pathariya, Post - Banka, Police Station Meral, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand) At Present Address Village Revti C/o Asrafi Sao, Tahsil Prartappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Rajnath Shah S/o Prayas Shah Aged About 65 Years R/o Village - Pathariya, Post - Banka, Police Station Meral, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand) At Present Address Village Revti C/o Asrafi Sao, Tahsil Prartappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5. Bhoga Devi W/o Rajnath Shah Aged About 63 Years R/o Village - Pathariya, Post - Banka, Police Station Meral, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand) At Present Address Village Revti C/o Asrafi Sao, Tahsil Prartappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Nandan Kumar S/o Mahendra Kumar, R/o Village - Mamua, Post - Bichchhi, Tahsil And District Robertsganj, Sonbhadra (Uttar Pradesh) At Present Business Address - Amit Kumar Jaiswal, R/o C/o Amit Kumar Jaiswal, 104, Budhabedhawa, Post - Vidhanmganj Uttar Pradesh 492001 (Vehicle Driver), Uttar Pradesh 2. Anand Food Product C/o Amit Kumar Jaiswal, Address - 104, Budhabedhawa, Post - Vidhamganj Uttar Pradesh. 492001 (Vehicle Owner), Uttar Pradesh 3. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Fourth Floor, Maruti Heights C.E. Road, Beside Sky Maruti Dealer, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Insurance company Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22. 09.2025 1. The claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against award passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur in Claim Case/MACT No. 17/2018 dated 08.10.2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs. 7,45,000/- on account of death of Amresh Prasad Gupta, with interest at the rate of 6%. 2. The facts of the present case are that on 20.08.2017, Amresh Prasad Gupta as a pillion rider was going along with Ravindra Gupta from Ambikapur Bazar to village Revti. Near petrol pump, offending truck bearing registration No. UP 64 T 2767 dashed the scooty, consequently, Amresh Prasad Gupta sustained grievous injury and died during course of treatment on 08.09.2017. 3. The claimants filed claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act inter alia on the ground that the deceased was working as Fitter in a construction company and was earning Rs. 410/- per day and his age at the time of accident was 40 years, they claimed a sum of Rs. 27,67,810/-. 4. The driver and owner were proceeded ex-parte. The insurance company filed its reply and denied contents of claim application. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, and thereafter, passed an award. 5. Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate appearing for the appellants would 3 submit that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while assessing notional income of the deceased, though it was proved by his employer, namely, Anand Prasad Gupta, that the deceased was working as Fitter in Unique Infra Private company and was earning Rs. 410/- per day and certificate Ex. P/16 was proved by him, but such piece of evidence was not considered. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal has not passed award for loss of consortium to all claimants. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/Insurance company would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award. He would further submit that the salary slip was not issued in accordance with the law, and therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly discarded it. He would contend that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Perusal of the evidence of AW/3, namely, Anand Prasad Gupta would reveal that the deceased was working as Fitter under the Unique Infra Private company and was earning Rs. 410/- per day. A certificate was also issued in this regard. The learned Tribunal discarded the said document only on the ground that GST and TIN numbers are not mentioned on the said document. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in this regard appears to be erroneous as the Insurance company could not adduce evidence to rebut the validity of said document. 9. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to all claimants, thus, the award passed by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration. 10. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of 4 the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130, this Court is computing the compensation as below :- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 4500 x12 = Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 12,300 x12 = Rs. 1,47,600/- 2. Future Prospect (25%) = Rs.13,500/- (25%) = Rs. 36,900/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 Rs. 22,500/- Rs. 45,000/- (-) 1/3 Rs. 61,500/- Rs. 1,23,000/- 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs. 6,75,000/- (x) 15 = Rs. 18,45,000/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Spousal Consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 8. Loss of Parental consortium(for appellant No. 2) NIL Rs. 48,000/- 9. Loss of Parental consortium(for appellant No. 3) NIL Rs. 48,000/- TOTAL Rs. 7,75,000/- Rs. 20,11,000/- 11. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 7,75,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to 5 Rs. 20,11,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 7,75,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 12,36,000/-. 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. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant