(MAC No.145/2023) 2025:CGHC:46929 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 145 of 2023 1. Smt. Sarita, W/o Late Jai Pratap, Aged about 26 years, Occupation House Wife 2. Radha Kumari, D/o Late Jai Pratap, Aged about 7 years, Occupation nil 3. Ajay Pando, S/o Late Jai Pratap, Aged about 7 years, Occupation nil 4. Ku. Arti, D/o Late Jai Pratap, Aged about 2 years, Occupation nil 5. Bansdev Pando, S/o Late Gola Pando, Aged about 65 years, Occupation nil Appellant No.2 to 4 are minor through natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita, W/o Jaipratap. All are R/o Village Dolangi, Ward No.10, Post Dolangi, Police Station & Tehsil Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Surendra Kumar Toppo @ Bablu, S/o Bharat Kumar Toppo, Aged about 34 years, Occupation Driver, R/o Nagar Panchayat Kushami, Masjidpara, Police Station & Tahsil Kushami, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2. Ramchandra Gupta, S/o Late Suraj Sao, Aged about 50 years, Occupation Bus Owner, R/o Old Post Office Road, Darripara, Nagar Ambikapur, Police Station & Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3. The Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Ambika Petrol Pump Campus, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Nagar Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Respondents SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.09.16 11:24:48 +0530 (MAC No.145/2023) For Appellants : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 12/09/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) has been preferred by the appellants herein/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 17-10-2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.181/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 15,69,400/- as compensation for the death of Jai Pratap, who was Rajmistri, aged about 28 years at the time of incident. The appellants herein/claimants are wife, children and father, respectively, of deceased Jai Pratap. 2. Mr. Shubham Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that the deceased was Rajmistri and the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income to be ₹ 9,200/- on the basis of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2021, whereas, it has been taken as ₹ 7,000/-, therefore, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. Page 3 of 4 (MAC No.145/2023) 3. Mr. Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Jai Pratap to be ₹ 7,000/-, 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 ₹ 9,200/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and ₹ 1,10,400/- per annum. 6. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was Rajmistri, 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 Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. 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:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.145/2023) Calculation 1. Income ₹ 7,000 x 12 = ₹ 84,000/- ₹ 9,200 x 12 = ₹ 1,10,400/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 33,600; total income = ₹ 84,000 + 33,600 = ₹ 1,17,600/- (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 44,160; total income = ₹ 1,10,400 + 44,160 = ₹ 1,54,560/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ = ₹ 29,400/- ₹ 1,17,600 – 29,400 = ₹ 88,200/- (total income) (-) ¼ = ₹ 38,640/- ₹ 1,54,560 – 38,640 = ₹ 1,15,920/- (total income) 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = ₹ 14,99,400/- (x) 17 = ₹ 19,70,640/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 44,000 x 5 = ₹ 2,20,000/- Total ₹ 15,69,400/- ₹ 22,23,640/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 15,69,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 22,23,640/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 15,69,400/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 6,54,240/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 28-9-2021 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. 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 Soma