1 2025:CGHC:45094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1495 of 2022 1 - Smt. Rameshwari Khairwar Wd/o Late Shri Amritlal, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Nagoibhatha Village And Post - Jemra, Tahsil And Police Station - Pali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Mukesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Amritlal, Aged About 14 Years (Minor) Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rameshwari Khairwar, R/o Village Nagoibhatha Village And Post - Jemra, Tahsil And Police Station - Pali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Mahendra Kumar, S/o Late Shri Amritlal, Aged About 12 Years (Minor) Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rameshwari Khairwar, R/o Village Nagoibhatha Village And Post - Jemra, Tahsil And Police Station - Pali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Umend Singh, S/o Late Shri Tirith Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Nagoibhatha Village And Post - Jemra, Tahsil And Police Station - Pali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Amrika Bai, W/o Umend Singh, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Nagoibhatha Village And Post - Jemra, Tahsil And Police Station - Pali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.09.04 10:44:56 +0530 2 versus Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Through - Branch Manager, Shop No. G-1/12, Zone-1, Vyapar Vihar, Near Renault Showroom, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Pin - 495001, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ........Insurer Of Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 12 Al 6320 ... Respondent For Appellants : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 03.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 14/10/2022 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 49/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 16,25,200/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Amritlal, aged about 32 years, who worked as a Rajmistri (Mason). 3 2. 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. 7,000/- per month which should be Rs. 9510/- per month and therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Amritlal to be Rs. 7,000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 9,510/- (as per minimum wages prescribed 4 at relevant time) and Rs. 1,14,120/- per annum as he worked as a Rajmistri (Mason) i.e. semiskilled labourer. 6. 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 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 Rs. 7,000/- x 12 = Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 9,510/- x 12 = Rs. 1,14,120/- 2. Deduction (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 21,000/- = Rs. 63,000/- (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 28,530/- = Rs. 85,590/- 3. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 25,200/- = Rs. 88,200/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 34,236/- = Rs. 1,19,826/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs. 14,11,200/- (x) 16 = Rs. 19,17,216/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,76,000/- Rs. 1,76,000/- 8. Transport Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 16,25,200/- Rs. 21,31,216/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 16,25,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 21,31,216/-. Hence, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,06,016/-. 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 @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 05/12/2020 till its realization. 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 Harneet