1 MAC No. 1236 of 2022 2025:CGHC:45059 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1236 of 2022 1. Radhika Sahu W/o Surendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 44 Years; 2. Surendra Kumar Sahu S/o Guman Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Bhagwan Para, Parsada, Police Station Ranchirai, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 3. Govind Sahu S/o Surendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Bhagwan Para, Parsada, Police Station Ranchirai, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Rajkumar S/o Kunwar Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Diprapara Potia Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Driver). 2. Pramod Kumar Somani S/o Gaurishanker Somani, Aged About 50 Years, R/o M I G-19, Padmanabhpur Durg, Tehsil & District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner). 3. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Address G E Road, Rajendra Park, Durg, Tehsil & District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company) ... Respondents For Appellants :- Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 :- Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocate, on behalf of Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.04 10:41:44 +0530 2 MAC No. 1236 of 2022 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 03.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 12.08.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 191/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 16,62,136/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Ku. Leena Sahu, who was a civil service aspirant, aged about 22 years at the time of incident. The claimants/appellants herein are the mother, father and brother, respectively, of the deceased. 2. Mr. S.P. Sahu, 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. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as 10,530/- per month as a labour which should be 13,000/- ₹ ₹ as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh as the deceased was a civil service aspirant. He would further submit that 3 MAC No. 1236 of 2022 amount under the heads of estate, funeral expenses and consortium, liable to be enhanced. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Ms. Rakshita Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. Mr. B.N. Nande, learned counsel for respondent No.3, 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Ku. Leena Sahu to be ₹10,500/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, looking to the academic career of the 4 MAC No. 1236 of 2022 deceased who was a civil service aspirant and as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for mason, the monthly income of the deceased should be 13,000/- (as per minimum ₹ wages prescribed at relevant time) and 1,56,000/- per annum. ₹ Moreover, amount under the heads of estate, funeral expenses and consortium is also liable to be enhanced. 7. 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 ₹ 10,530 x 12 = ₹ 1,26,360/- ₹ 13,000 x 12 = 1,56,000/- ₹ 2. Future prospect (+) 40% = ₹50,544/- total income = ₹ 1,76,904/- (+) 40% = ₹ 62,400/- total income = ₹ 2,18,400/- 3. Deduction (- ) ½ = 88,452/- ₹ ₹ 1,76,904 – 88,452= ₹ 88,452/- (total income) (-) ½ = 1,09,200/- ₹ ₹ 2,18,400 - 1,09,200/- = 1,09,200/- (total ₹ income) 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 MAC No. 1236 of 2022 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 15,92,136/- ₹ (x) 18 = 19,65,600/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 18,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 18,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹40,000/- ₹44,000x3 = 1,32,000/- ₹ Total ₹ 16,62,136/- ₹ 21,34,600/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹16,62,136/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹21,34,600/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹16,62,136/-, the appellants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹4,72,464/- . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 25.11.2020 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. 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