Page No.1 of 5 IN MAC-1293-2022 2025:CGHC:57548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1293 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 18.07.2022, passed in Claim Case No.753/2017 (Anita Daudiya @ Anita v. Arif Bhai N. Sama and others) by the 12th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG)] 1 - Anita Daudiya @ Anita W/o Late Firoz Daudiya Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 20mana Basti, Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sahil Daudiya S/o Late Firoz Daudiya Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Anita Daudiya @ Anita. R/o Ward No. 20 Mana Basti, Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Meenakshi Daudiya D/o Late Firoz Daudiya Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Anita Daudiya @ Anita. R/o Ward No. 20 Mana Basti, Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants Versus 1 - Arif Bhai N. Sama S/o Noor Mohammad Bhai Sama Aged About 35 Years R/o Vishal Hadmatiya Mession District Junagadh (Gujarat). (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.J. 03/b.V./8442). 2 - Mo. Jafar S/o Ayyub Bhai Sama Aged About 22 Years R/o Behind Moti Fali Dargah, Hadphodi, Thana Upmeta District Janagadh (Gujarat). (R/o Vishal Hadmatiya Mession District Junagadh (Gujarat). (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.J. 03/b.V./8442). 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office -No. -3, R.D.A. Complex, Near Bajrang Hotel, G.E. District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.J. 03/b.V./8442). ... Respondents SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 5 IN MAC-1293-2022 [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 26.11.2025 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. 18.07.2022, passed in Claim Case No.753/2017 (Anita Daudiya @ Anita v. Arif Bhai N. Sama and others) by the 12th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.14,24,256/- as compensation for the death of Firoz Khan. 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.7,800/- per month which should be Rs.8,190/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Even, the learned Claims Tribunal has also erred in adding only 25% amount under the head of future prospect, whereas, it ought to have been 40% under the fats and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the instant appeal Page No.3 of 5 IN MAC-1293-2022 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 to be Rs.7,800/-, 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.8,190/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, the learned Claims Tribunal has also erred in adding only 25% amount under the head of future prospect, whereas, it ought to have been 40% under the fats and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. Page No.4 of 5 IN MAC-1293-2022 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.7800 x 12 = Rs.93,600/- Rs.8190 x 12 = Rs.98,280/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 25% (i.e. Rs.23,400/-) = Rs.1,17,000/- (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.39,312/-) = Rs.1,37,592/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.39,000/-) = Rs.78,000/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.45,864/-) = Rs.91,728/- 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs.11,70,000/- (x) 15 = Rs. Rs.13,75,920/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,32,000/- Rs.1,32,000/- 8. Medical Expenses Rs.80,256/- Rs.80,256/- 9. Attendant Rs.9,000/- Rs.9,000/- Total Rs.14,24,256/- Rs.16,30,176/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.14,24,256/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.5 of 5 IN MAC-1293-2022 Rs.16,30,176/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.14,24,256/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,05,920/-. The concerned respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% 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. 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 s@if