1 2025:CGHC:54869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 280 of 2022 1 - Smt. Sarita Dadsena Wd/o Sandeep Dadsena, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Pathariya, P.S. And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Kirti D/o Late Sandeep Dadsena, Aged About 8 Years Minor, Through The Legal Guardian, Smt. Sarita Dadsena Wd/o Sandeep Dadsena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Pathariya, P.S. And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Roshni D/o Late Sandeep Dadsena, Aged About 24 Years Minor, Through The Legal Guardian, Smt. Sarita Dadsena Wd/o Sandeep Dadsena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Pathariya, P.S. And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kanha S/o Late Sandeep Dandsena, Aged About 4 Years Minor, Through The Legal Guardian, Smt. Sarita Dadsena Wd/o Sandeep Dadsena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Pathariya, HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.12 10:52:55 +0530 2 P.S. And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Govardhan @ Belbatam S/o Kheda Diwakarh, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Pathariya Ward No. 7 P.S. And Tahsili Pathariya, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh).............(Vehicle Driver) 2 - Roshan Pandey, S/o R.S. Pandey, Manager Trimurti Public School Sargaon, P.S. Sargaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh........(Vehicle Owner) 3 - Reliance Commercial Vehicle Shop No. 516, 5th Floor, National Corporate Park Commercial G.D. Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Ahilya Dadsena W/o Ramsevak Dadsena, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Pathariya P.S. And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ramsevak S/o Kodraj Dadsena, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Pathariya, P.S. And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. K.S. Kurre, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advcoate 3 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 11.11.2025 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 04/09/2021 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 21/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 13,55,200/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of Sandeep Dadsena, aged about 28 years, who worked as a food vendor. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- whereas it ought to be Rs. 8,140/- as per the minimum wages notification prevalent on the date of the accident. Moreover, the Claims Tribunal has only granted Rs. 15,000/- each under loss of estate and funeral expenses whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 16,500/- each and further the Tribunal has only granted Rs. 40,000/- under loss of consortium, whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 44,000/- x 6 = Rs. 4 2,64,000/-, as such, the compensation amount may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 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. A careful perusal of the record would show that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- whereas it ought to be Rs. 8,140/- as per the minimum wages notification prevelant on the date of the accident and the Claims Tribunal has only granted Rs. 40,000/- under loss of consortium which should be Rs. 2,64,000/-. 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 Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 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. 6,000/- x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 8,140/- x 12 = Rs. 97,680/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 28,800/- = Rs. 1,00,800/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 39,070/- = Rs. 1,36,752/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 25,200/- = Rs. 75,600/- (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 34,188/- = Rs. 1,02,564/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = Rs. 12,85,000/- (x) 17 = Rs. 17,43,588/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 44,000/- x 6 = Rs. 2,64,000/- Total Rs. 13,55,200/- Rs. 20,40,588/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 13,55,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 20,40,588/-. Hence, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,85,388/-. Respondent No. 3 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 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 03/04/2019 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