-1- 2025:CGHC:50339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1793 of 2019 1 - Nooradhan Pradhan S/o Late Pooran Pradhan Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Garhphuljhar, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Padmalya Pradhan W/o Nooradhan Pradhan R/o Village Garhphuljhar, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Trideep Pradhan S/o Nooradhan Pradhan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Garhphuljhar, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Bisi Kesan Nayak S/o Ramo Nayak @ Rama Nayak R/o Village Chardayali, Police Station Jharbandh, District Bargarh (Odisha) Other Address Saraipali, Jhilmila Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Driver, Vehicle No C.G./04/e/1767), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jeet Singh Bagga S/o Trilok Singh Bagga R/o Avanti Vihar Colony, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Other Address Bir Travels, Pakuri, Near New Bus Stand, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner, Vehicle No C.G./04/e/1767), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Zone Manager, Zone Office No 1, Jail Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Vehicle No C.G./04/e/1767), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate For other respondents : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.10.2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Additional Motor -2- Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.634/2015 dated 18.07.2018 whereby, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.34,81,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Sudeep Pradhan. 3) The brief facts are that on 25.11.2013, the deceased Sudeep Pradhan along with his friends was going to Raipur from Pithoura in bus bearing registration No.C.G.04E/1767. The driver of the said vehicle dashed a tree, resultantly, passengers sustained grievous injuries. Late Sudeep Pradhan also sustained injuries and died at the spot. The claimants, who are parents and younger brother of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, it is pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 30 years and he was earning Rs.25,000/- as he was Ayurved Medical Officer. The driver, owner and Insurance Company filed their reply and denied contents of claim application. 4) Learned Tribunal framed issues, the parties led evidence and thereafter, award was passed. 5) Ms. Anamika Jain, counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal has not considered the dependency part properly. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants. She would pray to enhance the compensation. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Jain. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the -3- record. 8) The age of the deceased was 30 years and he was bachelor. Learned Tribunal assessed notional monthly income of deceased Rs.25,000/- per month and deducted 50%. Learned Tribunal further added 40% of the income for future prospects. The learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 17 looking to the age of the deceased. For loss of estate and funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/-- Rs.15,000/-. 9) It appears that the learned Tribunal has properly assessed the income part and applied correct multiplier. 10) It appears that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants. As the date of accident was 25.11.2013 and almost 12 years have passed, therefore, each of the claimants would be entitled for a additional sum of Rs.48,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum and thus, the award requires recomputation. 11) The compensation is being revisited herein below: Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.2,90,000/- Rs.2,90,000/- 2. Future Prospect 40% = Rs.4,06,000/- 40%= Rs.4,06,000/- 3. Deduction (-) ½ = Rs.2,03,000/- (-) ½ = Rs.2,03,000/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = Rs. 34,51,000/- (x) 17 = Rs. 34,51,000/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- -4- 7. Loss of Consortium (appellants No.1,2 & 3) Nil Rs.48000/- x 3 = Rs.1,44,000/- 8. Total Rs.34,81,000/- Rs. 36,10,000/- 12) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.34,81,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.36,10,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.34,81,000/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,44,000/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. 13) Accordingly, the appeal is hereby partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha