-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 336 of 2021 1 - Kleris Tigga W/o Late Victor Tigga Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 513 / 21, Sindhiya Nagar , Durg , Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Eliejar Tigga S/o Late Victor Tigga Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Their Mother Kleris Tigga , W/o Late Victor Tigga, Aged About 39 Years, R/o House No. 513 / 21, Sindhiya Nagar , Durg , Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Mary Siayon Tigga D/o Late Victor Tigga Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Their Mother Kleris Tigga , W/o Late Victor Tigga, Aged About 39 Years, R/o House No. 513 / 21, Sindhiya Nagar , Durg , Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - K. Kalyan Rao S/o K.V.S. Rao Aged About 25 Years R/o Street No. 48, A Cross Street , Smritinagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Car No. Cg-07-Bl-9800), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - K.V.S. Rao S/o K.S. Rao Aged About 59 Years A Cross Street , Smritinagar, Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Car No. Cg-07-Bl-9800) 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Near Maurya Talkies , G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company) ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For respondents No.1 & 2 : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.11.2025 1) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg -2- (C.G.) in Claim Case No.250/2019 dated 17.02.2020, whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.31,08,945/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Victor Tigga in motor vehicle accident. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that on 24.10.2018, the deceased Victor Tigga was going on his motorcycle towards Nehru Nagar Bilaspur and at the same time, the offending car bearing registration No.C.G.07/BL/9800 dashed him, consequently, he sustained injuries and during course of treatment died on 01.11.2018. She would submit that the deceased was running a computer and photocopy shop and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month and income tax return of four consecutive years were filed to prove the income of the deceased. She would further submit that a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was filed by wife and two children. She would contend that the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the notional income of deceased Rs.2,77,624/-. She would further contend that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospect and further failed to award compensation for loss of consortium. She would fairly submit that as the age of the deceased was 42 years, learned Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 14 but the learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 15. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- only for loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- for loss of estate and funeral expenses. She would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 3) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Sharma. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. -3- 5) The claimants submitted Income Tax Return of four consecutive years and said documents were taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs.2,77,624/- and I do not find any good ground to interfere with such finding. Learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for future prospect. The age of the deceased was 42 years, therefore, learned Tribunal should have awarded 25% additional sum on the income of the deceased for future prospect. Learned Tribunal committed error by applying multiplier of 15. Looking to the age of deceased 42 years, it should have been 14. Learned Tribunal further committed an error by granting compensation of Rs.25,000/- for loss of consortium. According to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the claimants are entitled for sum of Rs.40,000/- each with additional sum of 10% after expiry of each three years. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses and loss of estate which is at lower side. 6) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below : Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Yearly Income Rs.2,77,624/- Rs.2,77,624/- 2. Future Prospect Not awarded 25% of 2,77,624=69,406/- 2,77,624 + 69,406=3,47,030/- 3. Deduction 1/3 1/3 of 3,47,030 = 1,15,676 3,47,030-1,15,676= 2,31,354 4. Multiplier 15 14 x 2,31,354=32,38,956/- 5. For loss of dependency Rs.27,76,230/- -- -4- 6. For funeral expenses and Loss of Estate Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- + 20%= 18,000/- Rs.15,000 + 20%=18,000/- Total = 18,000/-+ 18,000/-= Rs.36,000/- 7. For medical expenses Rs.2,82,715/- Rs.2,82,715/- 8. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No.1) Rs.25,000/- Rs.40,000 + 20% =48,000/- 9. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No.2 & 3) Not awarded Rs.40,000 + 20% =48,000/- Rs.40,000 + 20% =48,000/- Total = 48,000 + 48,000=96,000/- 10. Total Rs.31,08,945/- Rs.37,01,671/- 7) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.31,08,945/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.37,01,671/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.31,08,945/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,92,726/- The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of 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/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha