1 2025:CGHC:60550 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 163 of 2021 1 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Maniram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Khokhri, Thana Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh..(Claimant), 2 - Smt. Anusuiya Sahu W/o Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Khokhri, Thana Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant/ Cross Appellant), ... Appellants versus 1 - Kholbahara Sahu S/o Sukhlal @ Sukul Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Khokhri, Thana Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (N. A. No.02), (Driver of Vehicle) 2 - Samaru Sahu Sukhlal @ Sukul Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Khokhri, Thana Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.............(N. A. No.02), (Owner of Vehicle) 3 - Office Incharge Magma Hdi General Ins. Co. Ltd. 1st Floor, Plot No. 102, Indira Commercial Complex, Infront of Natraj Hotel, T. P. Nagar Korba Chhattisgarh At Present 5th Floor, Dainik Bhaskar, Press Complex, Raipur Chhattisgarh Insurer of Vehicle Tractor No. CG-11DA-1473. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For other respondents : None though served. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 2 12/12/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. Initially, MAC/2002/2018 was filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the validity as well as quantum and in the said appeal, cross-appeal was preferred by the claimants. The appeal preferred by the Insurance company was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.02.2021 and a direction was issued to register the cross appeal as fresh Misc. Appeal. Pursuant to the direction issued in MAC/2002/2018, this appeal has been registered. 5. In the present appeal, the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa in MACT No. 45/ 2015 dated 05.04.2016, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 3,49,000/- with interest @ 8 % per annum on account of death of Raju Kumar Sahu. 6. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that on 05.12.2014, the offending Tractor bearing registration No. CG-11-DA-1473 which was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, resultantly, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 7. The parents of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and pleaded that the deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.4,500 to 6,000 per month. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would further submit that learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for future prospect and also failed to grant compensation on conventional heads. He would submit that in absence 3 of evidence, the learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased; thus, he would pray to enhance the compensation. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellants and submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation; thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as 3,000/- per month, whereas the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer was Rs.5,517/- per month; the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure for computing the compensation. Further, the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for future prospect, which would be 40 % looking to the age of the deceased as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. 11. The learned Tribunal should have granted Rs.70,000/- for loss of consortium; loss of estate & funeral expenses according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra). 12. In view of the above, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and same is recomputed as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Annual Income ₹3,000 × 12 = 36,000 ₹ 5,517 × 12 = ₹ 66,204 ₹ 2 Deduction ½ = 18,000/- 1/2 = 66,204 ÷ 2 = 33,102 ₹ 3 Future prospects None 40%= 33,102 of 40 % = 13,241 ₹ → Total 4 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court = 46,343 ₹ 4 Multiplier 18,000 × 18 = 3,24,000 ₹ 46,343 × 18 = 8,34,170 ₹ 5 Loss of consortium None ₹70,000 6 Loss of estate 12,500 ₹ 7 Funeral expenses 12,500 ₹ 8 Total Compensation ₹3,49,000 9,04,170 ₹ 9 Final Compensation 9,04,170 – 3,49,000 = ₹5,55,170/- ₹5,55,170/- In view of the above calculation, the claimants shall be entitled to an additional sum of 5,55,170/- ₹ . The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation 5,55,170/- ₹ with interest @ 8% per annum to the appellants/claimants within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim