1 MAC No. 1400 of 2022 2025:CGHC:48823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1400 of 2022  Smt. Ekta @ Jyoti Sahu W/o Late Jitendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 24 Years, Presently R/o In The House Of Khilendra Sahu, Mamta Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Permanent Address Village Khamhardih, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Tameshwar Patel S/o Santu Patel, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Babura (Gandai), Thana Gandai, Pandariya, Tahsil Chuikhadan, District, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Driver). 2. Vicky Agrawal S/o Ishwar Prasad Agrawal, R/o Gandai, Tahsil Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Owner). 3. Ifco Tokio Insurance Company, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office Near Anupam Nagar, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Insurer). 4. Smt. Chander Bai W/o Late Hajarilal Sahu, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Village Khamhardih, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant :- Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 :- Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Shiv Sewak, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. 2 MAC No. 1400 of 2022 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 23.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 20.07.2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 157/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 8,93,000/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Jitendra Kumar Sahu, who was a employment assistant in Panchayat, aged about 30 years at the time of incident. 2. Ms. Bhaviak Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. She would also submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as 4,000/- per month which should be 7,500/- as per ₹ ₹ Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. She would also submit that the Claims Tribunal has also erred in awarding the amount under the head of additional amount, therefore, the instant 3 MAC No. 1400 of 2022 appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Ms. Shrejal Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.3, would submit that the appellant has 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. Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, would submit that the owner and the driver are not liable to pay the amount. 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 to be 4,000/-, 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 7,500/- (as per minimum wages ₹ 4 MAC No. 1400 of 2022 prescribed at relevant time) and 90,000/- per annum. Moreover, ₹ the amount under the head of additional is 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 ₹ 4000 x 12 = ₹ 48,000/- ₹ 7,500 x 12 = 90,000/- ₹ 2. Future prospect (+) 50% = ₹24,000/- total income = ₹ 72,000/- (+) 50% = ₹ 45,000/- total income = ₹ 1,35,000/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 = 24,000/- ₹ ₹ 72,000 – 24,000= ₹ 48,000/- (total income) (-) 1/3 = 45,000/- ₹ ₹ 1,35,000 – 45,000 = 90,000/- (total income) ₹ 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 8,16,000/- ₹ (x) 17 = 15,30,000/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate ₹15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 7. Consortium ₹40,000/- 80,000/- ₹ 8. Additional 10% ₹7,000/- 11,000/- ₹ Total ₹ 8,93,000/- ₹ 16,51,000/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 MAC No. 1400 of 2022 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹8,93,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹16,51,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹8,93,000/-, the appellant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of 7,58,000/- ₹ . 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 @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal 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