1 2025:CGHC:53559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 536 of 2024 1 - Gunaram S/o Panchram Aged About 58 Years Caste - Gaada, R/o Rainurkhurd, P.O. Nonbirra, Tehsil - Pali, District Korba (C.G.). ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Indraraj Prajapati S/o Bhagwandas Prajapati Aged About 35 Years R/o Raihali, Ward No. 9, Near Narayan Chakki Wala, P.S. Raihali, District Sagar (M.P.),..(Driver) 2 - Dwarika Prasad Sharma S/o S.B. Sharma R/o Ward No. 1, Katghora, Deepka Road, Dipka, District Korba (C.G.),..(Owner Of Vehicle Cg-12-S-3414) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager, T.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Shri Pallav Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : None. For Respondent No.2 : Shri T.R. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri B.N. Nande, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.11.2025 1. The appellant/ claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 24.11.2023, passed in Claim Case No.116 of 2022 by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khatghora, NIRMALA RAO 2 District Korba whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.3,29,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of Mahettar Ram. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on 7.1.2020, Mahettar Ram, aged about 65 years was going in search of his cows, he was dashed by the offending vehicle, a Trailer bearing registration No.C.G. 12 S 3414, resultantly he sustained injuries and died during the course of treatment. He would contend that the claimant, who is younger brother of the deceased filed a claim case claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.7,60,000/-. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- per month, which is at lower side looking to the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation under other heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the age of the deceased was 65 years and the learned Tribunal has rightly considered his notional income Rs.6,000/- per month. He would further submit that as the age of the claimant is 65 years and was residing separately, he would not come within the definition of a dependent. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 3 5. With regard to contention made by counsel for respondent No.3 that the age of claimant is 65 years and he was residing separately and not dependent on the income of the deceased, the Insurance Company has not filed this appeal and failed to raise these grounds before the learned Tribunal and for the first time, these grounds are being raised in this appeal, therefore, cannot be accepted. 6. A perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, which is on the lower side considering the minimum wages applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in January, 2020 was Rs.8,600/- per month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the said amount for computation of compensation. However, under other heads, learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 7. As the age of the deceased was 65 years, the claimant would not be entitled for compensation towards future prospects. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 6,000 x12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 8,600 x 12 = Rs. 1,03,200/- 2. Deduction (-) 50% (36,000/-) (72,000 – 36,000 = 36,000/- (-) 50% (51,600/-) (Rs.1,03,200-51,600) = Rs. 51,600/- 3. Multiplier (x) 7 = Rs. (36,000 x 7 = 2,52,000/-) (x) 7 = Rs. (51,600 x 7 = 3,61,200/-) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 4 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000 TOTAL Rs. 3,29,000/- Rs. 4,38,200/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,29,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,38,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,29,000/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,09,200/-. The Insurance Company 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 @ 7% 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. 10. 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