(MAC No.1109/2022) 2025:CGHC:56791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1109 of 2022 {Arising out of award dated 6-8-2022 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case No.208/2021} Smt Subri Bai Yadav, Wd/o Late Damru Ram Yadav, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village Mangnar, Pujaripara, Post Nenganar, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar (C.G.) (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1. Ritesh Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Shyamlal Jaiswal, Schoolpara, Balood, Post Balood, Tahsil and P.S. Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) (Driver) 2. Dilip Singh, S/o Bisner, Aged about 70 years, House No.2438/03, Ward No.18, Kirandul, P.S. Kirandul, District Dantewada (C.G.) (Owner) 3. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at Laxman Avenue, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (Insurance Co.) 4. Sonaruram Yadav, S/o Late Budhu Yadav, Aged about 55 years, 5. Smt. Sushila Bai Yadav, W/o Sonaruram Yadav, Aged about 50 years, Both R/4 & R/5 are residing at Village Mangnar, Post Nenganar, Chowki Kamanar, District Bastar (C.G.) (Non-claimants) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.11.22 15:25:26 +0530 (MAC No.1109/2022) Judgment on Board 21/11/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant herein/claimant seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 6-8-2022 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case No.208/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 17,77,800/- as compensation for the death of deceased Damru Yadav, who was running a provision store, aged about 32 years at the time of incident. The appellant herein/claimant is wife of the deceased. 2. Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/claimant, would submit that income of the deceased must be taken as ₹ 11,170/- per month, as the deceased was running a provision store. 3. Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 herein, and Mr. Shikhar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.4 & 5 herein, would oppose the appeal as also the aforesaid submission of Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant herein/claimant, and support the impugned award. Page 3 of 4 (MAC No.1109/2022) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Since the claimant herself has admitted that income of the deceased i.e. her late husband was ₹ 200/- per day, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held the income of the deceased to be ₹ 9,000/- per month. As such, there is no scope of enhancement so far as income of the deceased is concerned. However, considering the evidence available on record 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. 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 Calculation 1. Income ₹ 9,000/- x 12 = ₹ 1,08,000/- (Yearly Income) ₹ 9,000 x 12 = ₹ 1,08,000/- (Yearly Income) 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 43,200/- total yearly income = ₹ 1,08,000 + 43,200 = ₹ 1,51,200/- (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 43,200/- total yearly income = ₹ 1,08,000 + 43,200 = ₹ 1,51,200/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 = ₹ 50,400/- ₹ 1,51,200 – 50,400 = ₹ 1,00,800/- (-) 1/3 = ₹ 50,400/- ₹ 1,51,200 – 50,400 = ₹ 1,00,800/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = ₹ 16,12,800/- (x) 16 = ₹ 16,12,800/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 18,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 18,000/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.1109/2022) 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 44,000/- x 3 = ₹ 1,32,000/- ₹ 48,000/- x 3 = ₹ 1,44,000/- Total ₹ 17,77,800/- ₹ 17,92,800/- 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 17,77,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 17,92,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 17,77,800/-, the appellant is held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 15,000/-. 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 @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 25-6-2021 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7. 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