1 MAC No. 738 of 2023 2025:CGHC:47839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 738 of 2023  Bechurai D/o Late Jaleshwar Rai, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Post Bachhapar, District Baliya Utter Pradesh Pin No.277303, Hall Mukam Near Vindhayavashni Mandir Birgaon, Thana Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1. Shyam Milan Jhariya S/o Shri Dolan Singh Jhariya, Aged About 42 Years, Permanent R/o Village Mungadara, Thana Bamhani Bazar District Mandala (M.P.) Hall Mukam - Baba Purshottam Road Line Shop No. S 47, Transport Nagar Ravabhatha Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No.-H.R.-73-0050). 2. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahare, Aged About 44 Years, Permanent R/o Village Dhavaipani Post Rajdhar, Chilfi, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Hall Mukam- Baba Purshottam Road Line Shop No. S 47, Transport Nagar Ravabhatha Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No.-H.R.-73- 0050). 3. Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Address - M.M. Plaza Rajendra Nagar Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No.-H.R.-73-0050). ... Respondents ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.18 18:11:52 +0530 2 MAC No. 738 of 2023 For Appellant :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 17.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 16.01.2023 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 890/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹10,76,600/- as compensation along with interest for death of Kumari Anamika Rai, who used to take up tuition classes, aged about 26 years at the time of incident. 2. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred i+n 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 ₹7,000- per month which should be ₹9,200/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh and, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3 MAC No. 738 of 2023 3. Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.3, would submit that the appellant has failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence and also the age of the deceased, 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 Kumarin Anamika Rai to be ₹7,000/-, 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 ₹9,200/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and ₹1,10,400/- per annum. 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 & 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 MAC No. 738 of 2023 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 ₹ 7,000 x 12 = ₹ 84,000/- ₹ 9,200 x 12 = ₹1,10,400/- 2. Future prospect (+) 40% = ₹33,600/- total income = ₹ 1,17,600/- (+) 40% = ₹ 44,160/- total income = ₹ 1,54,560/- 3. Deduction (-) ½ = ₹ 58,800/- ₹ 1,17,600 – 58,800= ₹ 58,800/- (total income) (-) ½ = ₹ 77,280/- ₹ 1,54,560 – 77,280 = ₹77,280/- (total income) 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = ₹ 9,99,600/- (x) 17 = ₹ 13,13,760/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,050/- 7. Consortium ₹44,000/- ₹44,000/- Total ₹ 10,76,600/- ₹ 13,90,760/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹10,76,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹13,90,760/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹10,76,600/-, the appellant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹3,14,160/-. 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 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 MAC No. 738 of 2023 compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 06.08.2021 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