1 (MAC No. 667 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:48826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 667 of 2022 1 - Smt. Sarita Bareth W/o Late Manoj Kumar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Kumharikala, Post Office Sarhar, Tahsil Chanmpa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Lakesh Kumar S/o Late Manoj Kumar, Aged About 11 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Bareth, W/o Late Manoj Kumar, R/o Village Kumharikala, Post Office Sarhar, Tahsil Chanmpa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Hemprakash Bareth, S/o Late Manoj Kumar Aged About 9 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Bareth, W/o Late Manoj Kumar, R/o Village Kumharikala, Post Office Sarhar, Tahsil Chanmpa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - J.S.D. Associated R/o Rahul Wasan, Ajay Cloth Stores, Chirmiri, Baikunthpur, At Present Rahul Wasan Chal Ward No. 8, Near Citi Kotwali, Korba Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ramsakun Yadav S/o Roop Narayan Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Saraisingar, Police Station Hardi Bazar, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Raigarh Division, Subham Complex, Ground Follr, Near S.B.I. Main Branch, Kewada Badi, Bus Stand Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sammela Bareth, S/o Budhuram Bareth, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kumharikala, Post Office Sarhar, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.09.24 10:40:09 +0530 2 (MAC No. 667 of 2022) 5 - Smt. Rambai, W/o Sammelal Bareth, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kumharikala, Post Office Sarhar, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellants :- Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 23.09.2025 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 of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 05.04.2022 passed by learned V Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.105/2021, whereby an amount of Rs. 21,66,000/- has been awarded as compensation for death of Manoj Kumar Bareth, who was working as driver, aged about 35 years, at the time of incident. 2. Appellants, who are wife and minor children of the deceased Manoj Kumar Bareth, filed an application under 3 (MAC No. 667 of 2022) Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 79,01,120/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased Manoj Kumar Bareth, was aged about 35 years and was sole bread earner of the family and on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by the respective parties, held that deceased Manoj Kumar Bareth died in the accident caused due to negligent and rash driving of trailer vehicle, insured by respondent No.3 and since breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, fastened the liability upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation and after calculation, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 21,66,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded very meager amount, as the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month, whereas the deceased 4 (MAC No. 667 of 2022) used to earn Rs. 23,782/- per month while working as driver. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove the exact income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the learned Claims Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Manoj Kumar Bareth to be Rs.10,000/- per month, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.10,630/- per month, which comes to Rs. 1,27,560/- per annum. 5 (MAC No. 667 of 2022) 8. 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 Sethi1, 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:- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,630/- Future prospects @ 40% Rs. 10,000 + 4,000 = Rs.14,000/- Rs. 10,630 + 4,252 = Rs.14,882/- Deduction of 1/4 Rs.14,000 – 3500 = Rs.10,500/- Rs.14,882 – 3720 = Rs.11,162/- Multiplier of 12 (per annum) and 16 Rs.10,500 x 12 x 16 = Rs.20,16,000/- Rs.11,162 x 12 x 16 = Rs.21,43,104/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- Loss of Spousal, parental Consortium Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 44,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,20,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- Total Rs. 21,66,000/- Rs. 23,96,104/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 21,66,000/- awarded by the Claims 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 (MAC No. 667 of 2022) Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 23,96,104/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 21,66,000/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,30,104/-. 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 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 11. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!