Page No.1 of 7 IN MAC-1243-2023 2025:CGHC:48041 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1243 of 2023 [Arising out of award dt. 23.03.2023, passed in Claim Case No.92 of 2022 (Smt. Anju Sahu and others v. Khilesh Singh and others) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG)] 1 - Smt. Anju Sahu Wd/o Late Arjun Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o 09 Village Sirgidi, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Dipanshu Sahu S/o Late Arjun Sahu, Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Their Natural Gaurdian Mother Smt. Anju Sahu R/o 09 Village Sirgidi, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Ku. Sandhya Sahu D/o Late Arjun Sahu, Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Natural Gaurdian Mother Smt. Anju Sahu R/o 09 Village Sirgidi, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Kantibai Sahu W/o Harishchand Sahu, Aged About 54 Years R/o 09 Village Sirgidi, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 5 - Harishchand Sahu S/o Late Badku Sahu, Aged About 58 Years R/o 09 Village Sirgidi, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus 1 - Khilesh Singh S/o Guman Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 23, Subhash Nagar, Mahasamnd, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Motorcycle Bajaj Platina Bearing No. C.G. 06 Gu 5512) 2 - Mahendra Sahu S/o Santram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 06 Nayapara Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mention Police SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 7 IN MAC-1243-2023 Station, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of Motorcycle Bajaj Platina Bearing No. C.G. 06 Gu 5512) 3 - Branch Manager Cholamandolam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Second Floor, Simaran Tower, In Front Of L.I.C. Building, Pandri Rapur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Motorcycle Bajaj Platina Bearing No. C.G. 06 Gu 5512) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. K.G Kela, Advocate For Respondents No.1-2 : None though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. SK Kushwaha, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 18.09.2025 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. 23.03.2023, passed in Claim Case No.92 of 2022 (Smt. Anju Sahu and others v. Khilesh Singh and others) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.13,19,600/- as compensation for the death of Arjun Sahu, who was aged about 35 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. 27.12.2021, at about 07-08 PM, while deceased- Arjun Sahu was returning to his house from Village Rajim Page No.3 of 7 IN MAC-1243-2023 on his motor-cycle and, when he reached near Sargi Nala, Village Borsi Fingeshwar, the driver (respondent No.1) of the offending vehicle i.e. Motor-cycle bearing No. CG-06-GU-512, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and hit the motor-cycle of the deceased from backside, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died. Thereafter, the appellants, who are dependents of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.53,20,000/- pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 35 years of age and used to earn Rs.18,000/- PM from his work of Mason. The deceased used to maintain his family members and, after his death, his family members have no any source of income to survive. Even otherwise, the deceased was aged about 35 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 (Motor- Page No.4 of 7 IN MAC-1243-2023 cycle) 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 (Motor-cycle) 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- Arjun Sahu died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle i.e. Motor-cycle bearing No.CG-06- GU-512, which was driven by respondent No.01 and owned by respondent No.2 herein. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs.13,19,600/- as total compensation with interest @ 06% p.a. from the date of filing of the 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.6,000/- per month which should be Rs.9,800/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, learned Claims Tribunal also erred in awarded Rs.15,000/- each on the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas it ought to have been Page No.5 of 7 IN MAC-1243-2023 Rs.16,500/- each. Even, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded total Rs.80,000/- on the heads of loss of consortium to the appellants, which ought to have been granted Rs.44,000/- for each of the appellants. 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 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 Arjun Sahu to be Rs.6,000/-, 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 Rs.9,800/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, on the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate Rs.15,000/- each has been awarded, whereas it ought to have been Rs.16,500/- each and on the heads of Page No.6 of 7 IN MAC-1243-2023 loss of consortium to the appellants Rs.80,000/- have only been awarded, but it ought to have been awarded Rs.44,000/- for each of the appellant. 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.6,000 x 12 = Rs.72,000/- Rs.9,800 x 12 = Rs.1,17,600/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.28,800/-) = Rs.1,00,800/- (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.47,040/-) = Rs.1,64,640/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs.25,200/-) = Rs.75,600/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs.41,160/-) = Rs.1,23,480/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs.12,09,600/- (x) 16 = Rs. Rs.19,75,680/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs.80,000/- Rs.44,000/- x 4 = Rs.2,20,000/- Total Rs.13,19,600/- Rs.22,28,680/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.7 of 7 IN MAC-1243-2023 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.22,28,680/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.13,19,600/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.9,09,080/-. The concerned respondents are directed to deposit the 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 @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 23.06.2022 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. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if