1 MAC No. 1826 of 2018 2025:CGHC:35156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1826 of 2018 1. Smt. Indu Tamrakar Wd/o Late Santosh Tamrakar, aged about 25 years; 2. Aman Tamrkar S/o Late Santosh Tamrakar, aged about 6 years (minor) through her next friend natural guardian Smt. Indu Tamrakar, Appellant No. 1; 3. Nandani Tamrakar D/o Late Santosh Tamrkar, aged about 5 years (minor) through her next friend natural guardian Smt. Indu Tamrakar, Appellant No. 1; 4. Sherya Tamrakar D/o Late Santosh Tamrakar, aged about 01 years (minor) through her next friend natural guardian Smt. Indu Tamrakar, Appellant No. 1; All are R/o Village Sanna, Tehsil Bagicha, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1. Basant Prasad Kesari S/o Late Muneshwar Kesari, aged about 65 years, R/o Village/Post Parsa, Tehsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2. Manoj Tirki S/o Late Marwari Tirki, aged about 34 years, R/o Village/Post Parsa Uraun Para, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.07.25 16:15:17 +0530 2 MAC No. 1826 of 2018 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Micro Office, Judev Complex Gamhariya Road, Jashpur, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants :- Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents :- Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 22.07 .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 of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jashpur, District Jashpur, in Claim Case No. 32/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 12,04,000/- ₹ as compensation for the death of Santosh Tamrakar, who was a driver and loader, aged about 38 years. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 12.09.2015 in the night, deceased Santosh Tamrakar was going Ranch on the offending pick-up vehicle bearing Registration No. C.G. 15 A.C. 3087 which was driven by one Manoj Tirki. On the way to Ranch, the 3 MAC No. 1826 of 2018 offending vehicle met with accident in which, Santosh Tamrakar was died and driver Manoj Tirki, respondent No.2 herein, suffered and Jitendra Sao suffered simple injuries. 3. Appellants, who are wife, son and daughter of deceased Santosh Tamrakar, respectively, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity “MACT”) seeking compensation to the tune of 42,50,000/- pleading therein that on the date of ₹ the accident, deceased Santosh Tamrakar was aged about 29 years, however, as per findings the actual age of the deceased was 38 years, and was a sole bread earned of the family and on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Santosh Tamrakar died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid pick-up vehicle driven by respondent No. 2 and owned by respondent No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, 4 MAC No. 1826 of 2018 awarded . ₹ 12,04,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 5. 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 ₹. 6,000/- per month which should be . 8,000/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages ₹ Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for agriculture work. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ as the same has not been awarded to each dependent member of the family of the deceased’, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove the exact 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 5 MAC No. 1826 of 2018 Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Santosh Tamrakar 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 agriculture work, the monthly income of the deceased should be ₹ 8,000/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and ₹ 96,000/- per annum. Moreover, a sum of ₹ 40,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal to appellant No. 1 as loss of parental consortium whereas a sum of ₹ 40,000/-each may also be awarded as loss of consortium (for sons i.e. appellant No. 2 & 4 and for daughter i.e. appellant No.3). 9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of 6 MAC No. 1826 of 2018 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 ₹ 6000 x 12 = ₹ 72,000/- ₹ 8,000 x 12 = . ₹ 96,000/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. 28,800 ; ₹ total income = 72,000 ₹ + 28,800 = ₹ 1,00,800/- (+) 40% i.e. 38,400; = ₹ total income = ₹96,000 + 38,400 = 1,34,400/- ₹ 3. Deduction (-) ¼ = 25,200/- ₹ ₹1,00,800-25,200 = 75,600/- (total ₹ income) (-) ¼ = 33,600/- ₹ ₹ 1,34,400-33,600 = ₹ 1,00,800/- (total income) 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = 11,34,000/- ₹ (x) 15 = 15,12,000/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- , 15,000/- ₹ 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 25,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹. 40,000/- ₹40,000 x 4 = ₹ 1,60,000/- Total ₹. 12,04,000/- ₹ 17,12,000/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 MAC No. 1826 of 2018 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of 12,04,000/- ₹ awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 17,12,000/- ₹ . Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 12,04,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 5,08,000/- . The concerned respondent is 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 amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 11.08.2016 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. The deposit Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit