Page No.1 of 5 IN MAC-836-2022 2025:CGHC:50400 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 836 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 30.04.2022, passed in Claim Case No.1303/2019 (Smt. Bhukhiya Bai and another v. Narayan Sharma and others) by the 3rd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG)] 1 - Smt. Bhukhiya Bai W/o Fagna Yadav Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Tarsing, Post Baijalpur, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Fagna Yadav S/o Late Lalmen Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Tarsing, Post Baijalpur, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Appellants Versus 1 - Narayan Sharma S/o Sukhdev Sharma Aged About 49 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Birkona, Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg 09 B 0828) 2 - Dwarika Prasad Chandrawanshi S/o Sarju Prasad Aged About 59 Years R/o Gayatri Mandir, Kawardha, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil Kabirdham District Kabirdham (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg 09 B 0828) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Office Rama Trade Centre, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Santosh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Dharamlal Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Tarsingh, Baijalpur, P.S. Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondents No.1-2 & 4 : None though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 5 IN MAC-836-2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 09.10.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 30.04.2022, passed in Claim Case No.1303/2019 (Smt. Bhukhiya Bai and another v. Narayan Sharma and others) by the 3rd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.12,56,360/- as compensation for the death of Teejuram Yadav, who was aged about 20 years on the date of occurrence. 2. 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.8,320/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded total Rs.44,000/- on the head of loss of consortium to the appellants, which ought to have been granted Rs.44,000/- for each of the appellants (i.e. Rs.44,000/- X 2 = Rs.88,000). Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the Page No.3 of 5 IN MAC-836-2022 compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.7800/-, 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 Rs.8,320/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, on the head of loss of consortium to the appellants Rs.44,000/- has only been awarded, but it ought to have been awarded Rs.44,000/- for each of the appellants (i.e. Rs.44,000/- X 2 = Rs.88,000/-). 6. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Page No.4 of 5 IN MAC-836-2022 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.7800 x 12 = Rs.93,600/- Rs.8,320 x 12 = Rs.99,840/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.37,440/-) = Rs.1,31,040/- (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.39,936/-) = Rs.1,39,776/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 (i.e. Rs.65,520/-) = Rs.65620/- (-) 1/2 (i.e. Rs.69,888/-) = Rs.69,888/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs.11,79,360/- (x) 18 = Rs. Rs.12,57,984/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs.44,000/- Rs.44,000/- x 2 = Rs.88,000/- Total Rs.12,56,360/- Rs.13,78,984/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.12,56,360/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.13,78,984/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.12,56,360/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,22,624/-. The concerned respondents are directed to deposit the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.5 of 5 IN MAC-836-2022 amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 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 claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 15.11.2019 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 s@if