1 MAC No. 1064 of 2022 2025:CGHC:41677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1064 of 2022 1. Smt. Chandrakali Bai W/o Late Shri Chandrashekhar Sahu, aged about 45 years; 2. Ku. Pukki D/o Late Chandrashekhar Sahu, aged about 22 years; 3. Ku. Payal D/o Late Chandrashekhar Sahu, aged about 18 years; All Caste – Teli and all R/o Village Padampur, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil and District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Keshav Sahu S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Sahu, aged about 37 years, R/o Village Sodhar, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tehsil and District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Owner/Driver). 2. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. through the Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd, Near Nutan Chowk, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Registered Office 15-Floor Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Perel Mumbai (M.H.)-400013. … (Insurer). ... Respondents ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.08.19 17:55:40 +0530 2 MAC No. 1064 of 2022 For Appellant :- Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 14.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 15/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 9,77,200/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Shubham Sahu who was a meson, aged about 25 years at the time of incident. The claimants/appellants herein are the mother and sisters, respectively, of the deceased. 2. Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in 3 MAC No. 1064 of 2022 the facts of the case. The Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as 6,000/- per month ₹ which should be ₹8,860/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for the labour. It is further contended that has erred in awarding compensation under the head of ‘consortium’, which is required to be enhanced and, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, 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 gone through the records minutely. 4 MAC No. 1064 of 2022 5. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Shubham Sahu to be 6,000/-, however, ₹ in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for meson/unskilled labour, the monthly income of the deceased should be 8,860/- (as per minimum wages ₹ prescribed at relevant time) and ₹1,06,320/- per annum. Moreover, a sum of ₹40,000/- has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the ‘head of consortium’ to the claimants/appellants is liable to be enhanced. 6. 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:- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 MAC No. 1064 of 2022 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income ₹ 6,000 x 12 = ₹ 72,000/- ₹ 8,860 x 12 = 1,06,320/- ₹ 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 28,800/-; total yearly income ₹ 72,000 + 28,800 = 1,00,800/- ₹ (+) 40% i.e. 42,528/-; ₹ total income = ₹ 1,06,320 + 42,528 = 1,48,848/- ₹ 3. Deduction (-) ½ = 50,400/- ₹ ₹ 1,00,800 - 50,400 = ₹ 50,400/- (total income) (-) ½ = 74,424/- ₹ ₹ 1,48,848 - 74,424 = 74,424/- (total ₹ income) 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 9,07,200/- ₹ (x) 18 = 13,39,632/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000 /- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 40,000/- ₹40,000 x 3 = 1,20,000/- ₹ Total ₹ 9,77,200/- ₹ 14,89,632/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹9,77,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹14,89,632/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹9,77,200/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹5,12,432/- . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the 6 MAC No. 1064 of 2022 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. 27.01.2021 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 Ankit