Page No.1 of 7 IN MAC-1331-2022 2025:CGHC:43359 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1331 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 26.04.2022, passed in Claim Case No.398 of 2018 (Kailesh Prasad Soni @ Poddar and others v. Mukhtar Singh and others) by the 4th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG)] 1 - Kailash Prasad Soni @ Poddar S/o Late Dashrath Prasad Soni Aged About 49 Years (As Per Cause Title) R/o Ektanagar, Old Khursipar, Bhilai Tahsil And Distt-Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sushil Kumar Soni S/o Kailash Prasad Soni Aged About 23 Years (As Per Cause Title) R/o Ektanagar, Old Khursipar, Bhilai Tahsil And Distt-Durg (C.G.) 3 - Ravi Kumar Soni S/o Kailash Prasad Soni Aged About 21 Years (As Per Cause Title) R/o Ektanagar, Old Khursipar, Bhilai Tahsil And Distt- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Nisha W/o Vishnu Kumar Soni Aged About 24 Years R/o Dharamshala Road, Main Chowk, Robertganj, Sonbhadra (U.P.) ... Appellants/ Claimants Versus 1 - Mukhtar Singh S/o Late Sohan Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o M.I.G.-30, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Ring Road, Hirapur, P.S.-Kabirnagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Driver Of Truck Trailer No. Cg04 Jc8213) 2 - Savindar Kaur D/o Late Dalbir Singh R/o 737, Behind Bharat Mata School, Tatibandh, Raipur, Distt-Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of Truck Trailer No. Cg04 Jc8213) 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Commercial Complex, G.E. Road, Tatibandh, Raipur Through Branch Office, Ahead Of Project Auto, Power House, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Distt-Durg (C.G.) (Insurer Of Truck Trailer No. Cg04 Jc8213) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 7 IN MAC-1331-2022 For Appellants : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 26.08.2025 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. 26.04.2022, passed in Claim Case No.398 of 2018 (Kailesh Prasad Soni @ Poddar and others v. Mukhtar Singh and others) by the 4th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.12,41,000/- as compensation for the death of Smt. Vimla Devi. 2. Facts of the case, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that on the date of occurrence i.e. 21.06.2018, in the night, while deceased- Smt. Vimal Devi was sleeping in her hut, situated at Ektanagar, Khursipar, the driver (respondent No.1) of the offending vehicle i.e. Trailer bearing No.CG-04-JC-8213, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and hit the hut of the deceased, due to which, the deceased died on the spot. Thereafter, the appellants, who are dependents (husband and sons and daughter of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.39,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- PM from her work. The deceased used to maintain her family members and, after his Page No.3 of 7 IN MAC-1331-2022 death, her family members have no any source of income to survive. Even otherwise, the deceased was aged about 48 years on the date of accident and was a able-bodied person and on account of her 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 her 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 (Trailer) 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 (Trailer) 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- Smt. Vimla Devi died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle i.e. Trailer bearing No.CG-04-JC-8213, 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 Page No.4 of 7 IN MAC-1331-2022 Rs.12,41,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date 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.8,000/- per month which should be Rs.8,620/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, 1/3 deduction from the income of the deceased have been done by the learned Claims Tribunal, whereas in light of the discussion of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender 1 , which is recently followed in the matter of Seema Rani and other v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2 , married daughter of the deceased (i.e. respondent No.04 herein) is also entitled for compensation, therefore, 1/4 deduction from the income of the deceased ought to have been deducted in the facts and circumstance of the present case. Even otherwise, no amount towards loss of consortium for appellant No.04 (daughter of the deceased) and appellant No.01 (spousal) has been awarded by the learned Claims tribunal, for which they are entitled too. As such, 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 1 (2020) 11 SCC 356 2 2025 INSC 192 Page No.5 of 7 IN MAC-1331-2022 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 to be Rs.8,000/-, 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.8,620/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, in light of the decisions of Birender (supra) Seema Rani (supra), it would be in the fitness of things that 1/4 deduction from the income of the deceased has to be done instead of 1/3 and, on the same footing, the appellants No.01 & 04 (i.e. husband and daughter of the deceased) are also entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.44,000/- each, which the learned Claims tribunal has not awarded. 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 3, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors4 and Magma General Insurance 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 Page No.6 of 7 IN MAC-1331-2022 Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 5 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.8,000 x 12 = Rs.96,000/- Rs.8620 x 12 = Rs.1,03,440/- 2. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.32,000/-) = Rs.64,000/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs.25,860/-) = Rs.77,580/- 3. Multiplier (x) 14 = Rs.8,96,000/- (x) 14 = Rs. Rs.10,86,120/- 4. Future Prospect (+) 25% (i.e. Rs.2,24,00/-) = Rs.11,20,000/- (+) 25% (i.e. Rs.2,71,530/-) = Rs.13,57,650/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium (appellant No.2 & 3) Rs.44,000/- X 2 = Rs.88,000/- Rs.44,000/- X 2 = Rs.88,000/- 8. Loss of Consortium (appellant No.1 & 4) NIL Rs.44,000/- X 2 = Rs.88,000/- Total Rs.12,41,000/- Rs.15,66,650/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.12,41,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,66,650/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.12,41,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,25,650/-. The concerned respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional 5 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.7 of 7 IN MAC-1331-2022 amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim application before the Tribunal 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