1 2025:CGHC:55091 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1129 of 2020 1 - Maniyaro W/o Dharamjeet Aged About 40 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Dawankara (Darripara) Post Kewra Tehsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aarti D/o Dharmjeet Aged About 26 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Dawankara (Darripara) Post Kewra Tehsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ajay S/o Dharmjeet Aged About 22 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Dawankara (Darripara) Post Kewra Tehsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jyoti D/o Dharamjeet Aged About 18 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Dawankara (Darripara) Post Kewra Tehsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Abhay Kumar S/o Dharamjeet Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian, Mother Maniyaro, Caste Panika, R/o Village Dawankara (Darripara) Post Kewra Tehsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dharamjeet S/o Shivprasad Aged About 50 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Dawankara (Darripara) Post Kewra Tehsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Sidharth Patel S/o Girish Patel Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Amandon P.S. And Tehsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Driver). 2 - Girish Patel S/o Ram Dinesh Patel Aged About 53 Years Caste Kunbi R/o Amandon P.S. And Tehsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Owner). 2 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Board Office Manendragarh Road Near Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Insurer). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Pawas Sharma, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Krishna Kant Prajapati, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 12/11/2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award dated 31.01.2020, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur, in Claim Case No. 50/2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.46 lakh on account of death of Mankunwar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.06.2019 at about 12:00 hours the deceased- Mankunwar was hit by a Mahindra Xylo car (CG-15-B- 8430). The vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, resultantly, she died during the course of treatment on 06.06.2019. The claimants, who are the daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation to the tune of ₹15,53,832/-. They pleaded that the deceased was 58 years old and earning 12,000 per month at the time of the accident. ₹ 3 3. The Driver and owner as well as Insurance Company filed reply and denied claim averments. Parties led evidence and learned Tribunal passed award. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal has fixed notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is at lower side looking to the minimum wages matrix prevelant at the relevant time in the State. 5. The learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants. It is also argued that learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospects. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 6. On the other hand, Mr. T. K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose and submit that only daughter of the deceased/claimant No.1 would fall within the definition of the legal heir. He would contend that other claimants are son in law, grand children of the deceased and they would not come within the definition of legal representative. He would submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law while deducting 1/3rd of notional income of deceased for personal and living expenses of the deceased and it should have been 50 %. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Appeal has been preferred by the daughter, son-in-law and grand children of the deceased. Admittedly, the son-in-law and grand children cannot be treated dependents of the deceased and only daughter of the deceased would fall within the purview of the dependent. Further, the learned Tribunal has considered the notional monthly income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- which is at lower side. In absence of evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, the 4 learned Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix to assess the income. The minimum wages prevalent in the State of Chhattisgarh in the month of June, 2019, admissible to an unskilled labourer was Rs.8,400/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure. Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for loss of consortium to daughter as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospects also. 9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 3,000 x 12 =36,000/- Rs. 8,400 x 12 =1,00,800/- 2. Deduction 1/3rd = 24,000/- ½ = 50,400/- 3. Multiplier X9 = 2,16,000/- X9 = 4,53,600/- 4. Future Prospect 0 10 % = 4,98,960/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium 0 Appellant No.1 = 40,000 +20% = 48,000/- Total Rs.2,46,000/- Rs.5,76,960/- Final Compensation Rs.5,76,960 – 2,46,000 Rs. 3,30,960/- 5 10.In view of the above calculation, the claimants shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 3,30,960/. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation Rs. 3,30,960/- with interest @6% to the appellants/claimants within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and condition of the award shall remain intact. 11.Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim