1 2025:CGHC:44048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1188 of 2023 1 - Smt. Siromani Wd/o Kavleshwar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Pakni, Police Outpost - Chendra, Police Station - Bhaiyathan, Tahsil - Odgi, District - Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Lakshmi Kushwaha W/o Late Parmanand Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Pakni, Police Outpost - Chendra, Police Station - Bhaiyathan, Tahsil - Odgi, District - Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Pritam Kushwaha S/o Late Parmanand Aged About 9 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Appelant No. 2, Smt. Lakshmi Kushwaha, R/o Village - Pakni, Police Outpost - Chendra, Police Station - Bhaiyathan, Tahsil - Odgi, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Nathnakar @ Ratnakar Paikra S/o Tapeshwar Paikra Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Pakni, Devallapara, Police Outpost Chendra, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Thasil - Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.),(Non Applicant No 1/ Driver And Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-29-Ae-1049) 2 - New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office - Ambika Petrol Pump Premises, Ambedkar HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.09.01 11:15:33 +0530 2 Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.),(Non Applicant No. 2/insurer Of Vehicle No.C.G.-29-Ae-1049) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 29.08.2025 1. The appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 13/06/2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 85/2022 whereby compensation of Rs. 6,24,400/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of Kaveleshwar, aged about 60 years. 2. Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, would firstly submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side as the Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,000/- whereas it ought to have been Rs. 9,280/- as per minimum 3 wages notification of zone-C worker. He would further submit that though the Claims Tribunal has exonerated respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) from the liability of payment of compensation, but it could have been directed to firstly pay the compensation to the appellants/claimants and thereafter, recover it from owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1 herein in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh1. 3. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, would support the impugned award and submit that learned Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of payment of compensation holding that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, as such, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,24,400/- in favour of the appellants/claimants after assessing the monthly income of deceased Kaveleshwar to be Rs. 7,000/-, however, in view of the minimum wages notification of zone-C worker, 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 4 it ought to have been Rs. 9,280/- per month and Rs. 1,11,360/- yearly. 5. 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 2, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors3 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 4 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 7,000/- x 12 = Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 9,280/- x 12 = Rs. 1,11,360/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 10% i.e. Rs. 8,400/- = Rs. 92,400/- (+)10% i.e. Rs.11,136/- = Rs. 1,22,496/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 i.e. Rs. 30,800/- = Rs. 61,600/- (-) 1/3 i.e. Rs. 40,832/- = Rs. 81,664/- 4. Multiplier (x) 9 = Rs. 5,54,400/- (x) 9 = Rs. 7,34,976/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 6,24,400/- Rs. 8,04,976/- 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,24,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 8,04,976/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,24,400/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,80,576/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 30/07/2022 till its realization. In view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Swaran Singh (supra), it is directed that respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) will firstly pay the compensation amount to the appellants/claimants and thereafter, recover it from respondent No. 1 herein. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned award is enhanced and modified to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet