1 2025:CGHC:47625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1589 of 2018 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Near Central Bank, R.M.S. Office Jagdalpur, Tehsil And District Jagdalpur Chhattistgarh. (Insurance Company), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Jaybati W/o Late Sukhram Netam Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dihipara Keshkal, Tehsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dhannuram S/o Kalyaram Aged About 31 Years R/o Aawas Block 2, Bahigaon, Thana And Tehsil Keshkal District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Ishwari Thakur W/o Jagannath Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o Aawas Block 12 Bahigaon, Thana And Tehsil Keshkal District RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1587 of 2018 1 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Near Central Bank, R M S Office Jagdalpur, Tehsil And District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurance Company ) (Appellant ), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Dasho Bai W/o Late Fulsingh Kunjam Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Aawas Block 12 Bahigaon, Thana And Tehsil Keshkal District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimant ), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dhannuram S/o Kalyaram Aged About 31 Years R/o Aawas Block 2 Bahigaon, Thana And Tehsil Keshkal District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver ), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Ishwari Thakur W/o Jagannath Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o Aawas Block 12 Bahigaon, Thana And Tehsil Keshkal District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner ), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 3 MAC No. 1594 of 2018 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Near Central Bank, R.M.S. Office Jagdalpur, Tahsil And District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh......(Insurance Company), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Jaybati W/o Late Sukhram Netam, Aged About 45 Years Resident Village Dihipara Keshkal, Tehsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh...........Claimant, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dhannuram S/o Kalyaram Aged About 31 Years Resident Aawas Block-2 Bahigaon, Thana And Tehsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Ishwari Thakur W/o Jagannath Thakur Aged About 40 Years Resident- Aawas Block 12 Bahigaon, Thana And Tehsil Keshkal District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)/Insurance Company : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/Claimants : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : None. 4 MAC No. 1831 of 2018 1 - Smt. Dasho Bai W/o Late Ful Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Awas Block 12, Bahigaon, P. S. And Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. .........Claimant, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Dhannu Ram S/o Kaliya Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Awas Block 2, Bahigaon, P. S. And Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgargh. .........Driver., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Ishwari Thakur W/o Jagannath Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Awas Block 12, Bahigaon, P. S. And Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. .........Owner, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manger Near Branch Central Bank, R. M. S. Office Jagdalpur, Tahsil And District Jagdalpur, Bastar, Chhattisgarh. .............Insurer., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1827 of 2018 1 - Jaibati W/o Sukhram Netam Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dihipara Keshkal, Tahsil Keshkal, District - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 5 ----(Claimant), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Dhannu Ram S/o Kaliya Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Awas Block 2 Bahigaon, Police Station And Tahsil Keshkal, District - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Ishwari Thakur W/o Jagannath Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Awas Block 12 Bahigaon, Police Station And Tahsil Keshkal, District - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - National Insurace Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Near Branch Central Bank, R.M.S. Office, Jagdalpur, Tahsil And District - Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. ----(Insurer), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1829 of 2018 1 - Jaibati W/o Late Sukhram Netam Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dihipara Keshkal, Tahsil Keshkal, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh........(Claimant), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 6 1 - Dhannu Ram S/o Laliya Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Awas Block 2 Bahigaon, P.S. And Tahsil Keshkal, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.......(Driver)., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Ishwari Thakur W/o Jagannath Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Awas Block-2 Bahigaon, P.S. And Tahsil Keshkal, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.......(Owner), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Near Branch Central Bank, R.M.S. Office, Jagdalpur, Tahsil And District- Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.........(Insurer)., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/09/2025 1. MAC Nos. 1589/2018, 1587/2018 & 1594/2018 has been filed by the insurance company whereas MAC Nos. 1827/2018, 1829/2018 & 1831/2018 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement. MAC Nos. 1589/2018, 1587/2018 & 1594/2018 7 2. The insurance company has filed these appeals to contest the liability that has been attributed to it in the matter at hand. All the cases involved pertain to the award dated June 19, 2018, issued by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, which arose from a single accident that occurred on July 6, 2017. The accident involved the offending vehicle, a Jeep bearing registration number C.G.19 T/0254. Given that all these appeals stem from the same incident and are connected to the aforementioned award, they have been consolidated and are being addressed together through this common order for the sake of judicial efficiency and consistency in adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, on the evening of July 6, 2017, at about 6:30 pm, a tragic accident occurred involving a Jeep bearing registration number C.G.19T/0254 and a motorcycle with registration number C.G.19DG/5616. The Jeep collided violently with the motorcycle, resulting in the immediate death of two individuals at the scene, including the driver of the motorcycle, Sop Singh. Additionally, the pillion riders on the motorcycle, Ganga Bai and Bipat Kumar, were critically injured; while Bipat Kumar succumbed to injuries instantly, the minor, Ganga Bai, despite receiving medical treatment, ultimately passed away during the course of her treatment. This unfortunate incident 8 highlights the severe consequences of the collision and underscores the loss of life caused by the accident. 4. Before the tribunal, three separate claim petitions were filed, designated as Claim Case Nos. 6/2018, 7/2018, and 8/2018, each seeking compensation on behalf of the respective deceased individuals. Upon careful consideration and thorough examination of the evidence presented, the tribunal concluded that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in the operation of the vehicle, which directly led to the occurrence of the accident. Consequently, acknowledging the established negligence and its causal connection to the unfortunate incident, the tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants in all three petitions, thereby granting the relief sought in recognition of the losses sustained. 5. Regarding the issue of liability, the tribunal has thoroughly examined the circumstances and concluded that there was a clear breach of the insurance policy. This determination was based on the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the necessary and valid driving license required to operate the vehicle legally. Additionally, although the vehicle in question was registered as a taxi, it lacked a valid permit on the date of the accident, which further compounded the violation. The absence of both a proper driving license for the driver and a valid 9 permit for the vehicle amounted to a direct breach of the terms and conditions stipulated in the insurance policy, thereby establishing liability on this ground. 6. The tribunal has thoroughly examined the matter and ultimately absolved the insurance company of any liability, placing full responsibility instead on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. This determination was made after careful consideration of the evidence and relevant facts, and notably, the owner and driver have not contested or challenged this allocation of liability, thereby implicitly accepting their accountability in the case. 7. Taking into account the aforementioned considerations, the tribunal has rendered a decision directing the insurance company to disburse the full amount of compensation to the claimant. Furthermore, the tribunal has stipulated that the insurance company is entitled to recover this sum from both the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, given that the vehicle was operated in violation of the terms of the insurance policy. This ruling underscores the principle that while the claimant is entitled to prompt and adequate compensation, the ultimate financial responsibility lies with those who have contravened the insurance agreement by running the vehicle without proper coverage. 8. In claim case Nos. 6/2018 and 7/2018 a sum of Rs. 7,10,400/- has been directed to be paid. 10 9. In claim case No. 8/2018 a sum of Rs. 6,34,800/- has been directed to be paid. 10. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that in all the appeals has vigorously challenged the impugned order issued by the tribunal, which directed the payment of compensation and mandated recovery of the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The core contention raised is that the tribunal erred in passing such an order in circumstances where there was a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, specifically because the driver did not possess a valid driving license or permit at the time of the incident. It was argued that this fundamental breach invalidates any liability on the part of the insurer to make compensation payments, and consequently, the tribunal was incorrect in holding that an order for payment and subsequent recovery could be lawfully passed against the owner and driver. The counsel emphasized that due to the fundamental nature of the breach, the tribunal’s direction to pay and recover compensation is legally impermissible and should be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the claimant, while submitting separate claim petitions, has fervently urged this Honorable Court to enhance the compensation awarded by the tribunal. It is contended that the tribunal has committed a 11 manifest error by passing an award that is significantly lower than what is just and equitable under the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the counsel has respectfully submitted that the current award is inadequate and does not fully reflect the extent of the claimant’s entitlement, necessitating a revision and enhancement to ensure fair and proper compensation. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. Upon a thorough examination of the record, it is evident that the tribunal has correctly attributed liability for compensation to both the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. However, in accordance with the applicable legal provisions, the tribunal has appropriately directed the insurance company to initially discharge the payment of compensation, while reserving the right to recover the amount subsequently from the owner and driver on account of their breach of the insurance policy. This course of action, in the considered view of this Court, does not warrant any interference. Furthermore, the insurance company has been expressly granted the liberty to pursue recovery from the owner and driver of the vehicle, a directive that aligns fully with established legal principles. 14. Accordingly, MAC Nos. 1589/2018, 1587/2018 & 1594/2018 filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and 12 accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 1827/2018 15. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/- per annum. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 21,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 75,600/-. After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 37,800/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 37,800/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 16 years and the appellant/claimant is the mother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 6,80,400/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,10,400/- in favour of the mother of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 16.Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,10,400/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing 13 the compensation amount suitably. 17.On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 18.None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 19.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 20.In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 21.Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 22. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from her work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per 14 month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 9,100/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,09,200/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.43,680/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,52,880/-. 23. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 16 years and the appellant/claimant is the mother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 76,440/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 76,440/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 13,75,920/-. The claimant is further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of 15 estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X1+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 48,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant i.e. mother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 14,59,920/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 13,75,920/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X1+10% +10%). Rs. 48,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 14,59,920/- 24. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 14,59,920/-. After deducting Rs. 7,10,400/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,49,520/-. 25. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 1827/2018) is partly allowed. 16 The claimant/appellant i.e. mother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,49,520/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. MAC No. 1829/2018 26. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/- per annum. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 21,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 75,600/-. After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 37,800/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 37,800/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 20 years and the appellant/claimant is the mother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 6,80,400/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,10,400/- in favour of the mother of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 17 27.Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,10,400/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 28.On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 29.None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 30.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 31.In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 32.Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the 18 given facts and circumstances of the case. 33. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 9,100/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,09,200/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.43,680/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,52,880/-. 34. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 20 years and the appellant/claimant is the mother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 76,440/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 76,440/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others 19 vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 13,75,920/-. The claimant is further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X1+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 48,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant i.e. mother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 14,59,920/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 13,75,920/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X1+10% +10%). Rs. 48,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in Rs. 18,000/- 20 every three years. Total Rs. 14,59,920/- 35. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 14,59,920/-. After deducting Rs. 7,10,400/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,49,520/-. 36. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 1829/2018) is partly allowed. The claimant/appellant i.e. mother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,49,520/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. MAC No. 1831/2018 37. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/- per annum. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 21,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 75,600/-. After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 37,800/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 37,800/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 30 years and the appellant/claimant is the mother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 6,04,800/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards 21 funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,34,800/- in favour of the mother of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 38.Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,34,800/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 39.On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 40.None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 41.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 42.In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the 22 compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 43.Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 44. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from her work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 9,100/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,09,200/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.43,680/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,52,880/-. 23 45. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 30 years and the appellant/claimant is the mother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 76,440/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 76,440/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 12,99,480/-. The claimant is further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X1+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 48,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant i.e. mother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 13,83,480/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 12,99,480/- 02 Towards consortium along with Rs. 48,000/- 24 with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X1+10% +10%). 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 13,83,480/- 46. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 13,83,480/-. After deducting Rs. 6,34,800/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,48,680/-. 47. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 1831/2018) is partly allowed. The claimant/appellant i.e. mother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,48,680/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat