1 2025:CGHC:47843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 47 of 2024 1 - Salikram S/o Shambhuram Gond Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bhandhatola, Tahsil And Thana Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.),...(Claimants) 2 - Roshni D/o Salikram Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Bhandhatola, Tahsil And Thana Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Minor Roshanlal S/o Salikram Aged About 15 Years Through Natural Guardian Salikram, Aged About 51 Years, S/o Shambhuram Gond, R/o Village Bhandhatola, Tahsil And Thana Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Somnath S/o Jhagruram Aged About 54 Years R/o Kurchi, District Gadchiroli, Maharastra, Ward No. 20 Bajar Chok Chilhati, Thana Chilhati, Tahsil - Ambagarh Chouki, Rajnandgaon, Present District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh (C.G.),...(Non- Applicants) 2 - Dileshwari Bai W/o Late Kirtaram Bhuga R/o Kurchi, District Gadchiroli, Maharastra, Ward No. 20 Bajar Chok Chilhati, Thana Chilhati, Tahsil - Ambagarh Chouki, Rajnandgaon, Present District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh (C.G.) 3 - Kuldeep Kumar Bhuga S/o Late Kirtan Bhuga Aged About 7 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Dileshwari Bai, W/o Late Kirtaram Bhuga, R/o Kurchi, District Gadchiroli, Maharastra, Ward No. 20 Bajar Chok Chilhati, Thana Chilhati, Tahsil - Ambagarh Chouki, Rajnandgaon, Present District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh (C.G.) 4 - Sourabh Kumar Bhuga S/o Late Kirtan Bhuga Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Dileshwari Bai, W/o Late Kirtaram Bhuga, R/o Kurchi, District Gadchiroli, Maharastra, Ward No. 20 Bajar Chok Chilhati, Thana NIRMALA RAO 2 Chilhati, Tahsil - Ambagarh Chouki, Rajnandgaon, Present District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh (C.G.) 5 - Satish Kumar Nishad S/o Ballu Ram Nishad R/o Ward No. 3, Bhathapara Jarviya, Post Surdung Jamul, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Tata A.I,.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Building No. 9/1, 2nd Floor, Behind Khandelwal Motors, Trejer, Near Eye And Mall, M.G. Road, Indore (M.P.),...(Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 : Shri Sourabh Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For other respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.09.2025 1. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 6.11.2023, passed in Claim Case No.41 of 2020 by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.8,91,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Lilabai. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that on 31.1.2020, deceased Lilabai and Bimlabai were travelling in a Chhota Hathi, bearing engine No.HLK 6536078, which overturned, resulting in Lilabai sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died during the course of treatment. She would submit that at the time of incident, the age of the deceased was 41 years old and earning Rs.600/- per day i.e., 3 Rs.18,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed her monthly income to the tune of Rs.5,500/-, which is on the lower side. She would submit that according to a notification issued by the Labour Commissioner, the minimum wages payable to a semiskilled Labourer as on 31.1.2020 was Rs.9,250/- per month and thus, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at lower side. She would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. The deceased was 41 years of age at the time of accident. It has been pleaded and proved by evidence that she was a semiskilled labourer. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased according to the notification issued by the Labour Commissioner under the minimum wages that was prevailing on 31.1.2020, which was Rs.9,250/- per month. Learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on other heads. 6. Considering the above-stated facts, the compensation is being revisited herein-below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 5,500 x12 = Rs. 66,000/- Rs. 9,250 x 12 = Rs. 1,11,000/- 2. Future Prospect 16,500/- (66,000 + 16,500 = 82,500/-) 27,750/- (1,11,000 + 27,750 = 1,38,750/-) 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (27,500/-) (82,500 – 27,500 = (-) 1/3 (46,250/-) (i.e. Rs. 1,38,750-46,250) = Rs. 4 55,000/- 92,500/- 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = Rs. (55,000 x 14 = 7,70,000/-) (x) 14 = Rs. (92,500 x 14 = 12,95,000/-) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 88,000/- Rs. 88,000/- TOTAL Rs. 8,91,000/- Rs. 14,16,000/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.8,91,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.14,16,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.8,91,000/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,25,000/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 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. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi