Page No.1 of 6 IN MAC-36-2022 2025:CGHC:38531 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 36 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 29.09.2021, passed in Claim Case No.144 of 2019 (Parwati Sonkar and other v. Rakesh Mishra and others) by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG)] 1 - Parwati Sonkar W/o Late Satyanarayan Sonkar Aged About 23 Years R/o Mahamayapara Ward No. 15 Simga District Balouda Bazzars Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kunal Sonkar Late Satyanarayan Sonkar Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Parwati Sonkar Appellant No. 1. R/o Mahamayapara Ward No. 15 Simga District Balouda Bazzars Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ganesh Sonkar S/o Late Ramsharan Sonkar Aged About 55 Years R/o Mahamayapara Ward No. 15 Simga District Balouda Bazzars Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tulsiram Sonkar S/o Ganesh Sonkar, Aged About 18 Years R/o Mahamayapara Ward No. 15 Simga District Balouda Bazzars Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants Claimants Versus 1 - Rakesh Mishra S/o Ramdhin Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Tighara, Thana Sauhapur, District Satna (M.P.) Hall Mukam Prem Nagar Mawa Thana Pandri District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Kusum Jain W/o Ashok Kumar Jain Aged About 49 Years R/o - 26/8, Sector Tatibandh Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal G.E.R. Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 6 IN MAC-36-2022 For Respondent No.3 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 04.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 29.09.2021, passed in Claim Case No.144 of 2019 (Parwati Sonkar and other v. Rakesh Mishra and others) by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.16,82,500/- as compensation for the death of Satyanarayan Sonkar, who was aged about 22 years on the date of occurrence. 2. Facts of the case, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that on the date of occurrence i.e. 09.11.2018, while deceased- Satyanarayan Sonkar was coming to Jai Stambh Chowk, Tilda from Simga and, at about 9:30 PM, the respondent No.01- driver, who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. Truck Trailer bearing No.CG-04-JC-3936 drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died. Thereafter, the appellants, who are wife, son, father and brother of the deceased respectively, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.29,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 22 years of age and Page No.3 of 6 IN MAC-36-2022 used to earn Rs.500/- per day from the work of Marble Mason. The deceased used to maintain his family members including his father and brother and, after his death, his family members have no any source of income to survive. Even otherwise, the deceased was aged about 22 years on the date of accident and was a able-bodied person and, on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties. 3. Respondents No.1 & 2 – driver and owner of the offending vehicle submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the accident was not caused by the aforesaid vehicle and the deceased has died on account of his own carelessness, moreover, on the date of the accident, the driver of the said vehicle was having valid driving license as well as the said vehicle (Truck Trailer) was duly insured with respondent No.3, therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.3. 4. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company has opposed the claim application stating that the said vehicle (Truck Trailer) was being used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased- Satyanarayan Sonkar died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle i.e. Truck Trailer bearing No.CG-04-JC-3936, which was driven by the respondent No.01 and Page No.4 of 6 IN MAC-36-2022 owned by respondent No.02 herein. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs.16,82,500/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.7,800/- per month which should be Rs.8,100/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of the deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Satyanarayan Sonkar to be Rs.7,800/-, however, in the Page No.5 of 6 IN MAC-36-2022 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 Rs.8,100/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) vis-a-vis Rs.97,200/- per annum. 10. 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 & 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 Rs.7,800 x 12 = Rs.93,600/- Rs.8,100 x 12 = Rs.97,200/- 2. Deduction (-) 1/3 (Rs.31,200) = Rs. 62,400/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.32,400) = Rs. 64,800/- 3. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs. 11,23,200/- (x) 18 = Rs. 11,66,400/- 4. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 4,49,300 = Rs.15,72,500/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 4,66,560 = Rs. 16,32,960/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of spousal Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.6 of 6 IN MAC-36-2022 (for appellant No.1) 8. Loss of Consortium (for appellants No.02 to 04) Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- Total Rs. 16,82,500/- Rs. 17,42,960/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.16,82,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,42,960/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.16,82,500/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.60,460/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 01.02.2019 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. The deposit Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if