Page No.1 of 6 IN MAC-1906-2023 2025:CGHC:43355 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1906 of 2023 1 - Smt. Manjli Poyam Wd/o Late Ram Singh Poyam Aged About 30 Years R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S. Kodenaar,, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Shilpa D/o Late Ram Singh Poyam Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Appellant No.1, Smt. Manjli Poyam (Mother) R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S. Kodenaar,, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Rubendra Singh Poyam S/o Late Ram Singh Poyam Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Appellant No.1, Smt. Manjli Poyam (Mother) R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S. Kodenaar,, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Khemeshwari D/o Late Ram Singh Poyam Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Appellant No.1, Smt. Manjli Poyam (Mother) R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S. Kodenaar,, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Mangal Poyami S/o Gado Poyami Aged About 48 Years Minor Through Appellant No.1, Smt. Manjli Poyam (Mother) R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S. Kodenaar,, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Durlo W/o Mangal Poyami Aged About 49 Years Minor Through Appellant No.1, Smt. Manjli Poyam (Mother) R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S. Kodenaar,, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/ Claimants Versus 1 - Rajendra Baghel S/o Heera Singh Baghel Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Kookanar, Thothapara, P.S.- Kookanar, (Driver), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mangalram Kashyap S/o Budham Kashyap Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Lohrapara, Alwa, P.S. Kodenaar, (Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 6 IN MAC-1906-2023 3 - Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office ,plant No. 1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Behind R.K.Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur, (Insurance Company), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. PK Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. PR Patankar, 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. 23.08.2023, passed in Claim Case No.144 of 2022 (Smt. Manjli Poyam and others v. Rajendra Baghel and others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baster at Jagdalpur (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.20,84,400/- as compensation for the death of Ram Singh Poyam. 2. Facts of the case, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that on the date of occurrence i.e. 13.11.2021, while deceased- Ram Singh Poyam was returning to his house from Keshloor on his motor-cycle and, on the way, the driver (respondent No.1) of the offending vehicle bearing No.CG-18-D-0297, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor-cycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died. Thereafter, the appellants, who are dependents of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- Page No.3 of 6 IN MAC-1906-2023 pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased used to earn Rs.20,000/- PM from his work Contractor. The deceased used to maintain her family members and, after his death, her family members have no any source of income to survive. Even otherwise, the deceased was aged about 33 years on the date of accident and was a able-bodied person and on account of his 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 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 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- Ram Singh Poyam died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle bearing No.CG-18-D-0297, which was driven by respondent No.01 and owned by respondent No.2 herein. Page No.4 of 6 IN MAC-1906-2023 Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs.20,84,400/- 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.9,000/- per month which should be Rs.10,000/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, the amount towards the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate ought to be Rs.18,000/- each instead of Rs.15,000/- each and the amount under the head of loss of consortium should be Rs.48,000/- for each of the appellants, whereas the learned Claim Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- each. 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 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 Page No.5 of 6 IN MAC-1906-2023 utmost circumspection. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.9,000/-, 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.10,000/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1 amount towards the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate ought to be Rs.18,000/- each instead of Rs.15,000/- each and, in light of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 2 the amount under the head of loss of consortium should be Rs.48,000/- for each of the appellants, whereas the learned Claim Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- each. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra), Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors3 and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (supra) this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.9,000 x 12 = Rs.10,000 x 12 = 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 Page No.6 of 6 IN MAC-1906-2023 Rs.1,08,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.43,200/-) = Rs.1,51,200/- (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.48,000/-) = Rs.1,68,000/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs.37,800/-) = Rs.1,13,400/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs.42,000/-) = Rs.1,26,000/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs.18,14,400/- (x) 16 = Rs. Rs.20,16,000/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium (appellant No.1 to 6) Rs.40,000/- X 6 = Rs.2,40,000/- Rs.48,000/- X 6 = Rs.2,88,000/- Total Rs.20,84,400/- Rs.23,40,000/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.20,84,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.23,40,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.20,84,400/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,55,600/-. 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 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