1 2025:CGHC:59089 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 576 of 2024 1 - Kamlesh Sahu S/o Shyamlal Sahu Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village Tappa, Tahsil - Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.),..(Claimants) 2 - Benibai Sahu D/o Shyamlal Sahu, W/o Tikeshwar Sahu Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Dhaba Kohka, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Lata Bai D/o Shyamlal Sahu W/o Horilal Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Aarikonari, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Preminbai D/o Shyamlal Sahu, W/o Mohan Sahu Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Junglepur, Tahsil - Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - Purnima Bai D/o Shyamlal Sahu, W/o Indrakumar Sahu Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Devri, Tahsil - Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Roshan Sahu S/o Heeta Sahu Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Village Ajikasra Tehsil - Balok, Police Station - Dhamsenpur, District Darbhanga, Bihar,....(Driver) 2 - Mohammad Kasim S/o Mohammad Salim Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Mana Tehsil - Murtijapur, District Akola (M.H.),..(Owner) 3 - A.I.G. Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office 15th Floor, Tower - A, Penisula Business Park Ganpat Rao Kadam, Park Opposite Senapati Bapat Marg Lower, Parel, Mumbai (M.H.),...(Insurance Company) ... Respondent(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. Respondent No.1 – Roshan Sahu, driver remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal and service of notice upon him is still awaited. 2. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle. 3. The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 13.2.2024, passed in Claim Case No.17 of 2022 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.5,21,400/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Shyam Lal, with a stipulation of pay and recover. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that on 9.3.2022, when the deceased was going to his agricultural field on a bicycle, driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No.M.H. 30 BD 4616 by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. He would contend that the claimants, who are the major son and daughters of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 55 years and 3 the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.61,00,000/- from the driver, owner as well as the Insurance Company jointly and severally. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is at lower side. He would contend that in absence of evidence with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix. He would contend that the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of March, 2022 was Rs.9,280/-. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.30,000/- each to the claimants for loss of consortium, which is on the lower side. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. She would submit that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading any cogent evidence and therefore, the learned Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs.6,000/- per month. She would contend that the Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- per month, which appears to be on the lower side. The claimants could not lead the evidence to prove the income of the deceased and in such a situation, the learned Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of March, 2022 was Rs.9,280/- and the Tribunal should 4 have taken that figure while computing the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal further committed an error of law in granting only Rs.30,000/- to each of the claimants towards loss of consortium whereas, the appropriate amount should have been Rs.40,000/-. The learned Tribunal has also not granted funeral expenses. 8. Thus, 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 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 9,280 x 12 = Rs. 1,11,360/- 2. Future Prospect 10% - 7,200/- (72,000 + 7,200 = 79,200/-) 10% - 11,136/- (1,11,360 + 11,136 = 1,22,496/-) 3. Deduction (-) 50% (39,600/-) (79,200 – 39,600 = 39,600/- (-) 50% (61,248/-) (Rs.1,22,496-61,248) = Rs. 61,248/- 4. Multiplier (x) 9 = Rs. (39,600 x 9 =3,56,400/-) (x) 9 = Rs. (61,248 x 9 = 5,51,232/-) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses ---- Rs. 18,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 30,000 x 5 = 1,50,000/- Rs. 44,000 x 5 = 2,20,000/- TOTAL Rs. 5,21,400/- Rs. 8,04,232/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.5,21,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.8,04,232/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.5,21,400/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,82,832/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. The Insurance Company shall first satisfy the compensation and thereafter, recover it from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 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