1 2025:CGHC:57578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1501 of 2023 1 - Smt. Santoshi Yadav Widow Of Vijay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Diprapara, Karhi Kacchar, Post And Chowki - Belgahna, Police Station And Tahsil -Kota, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2 - Mohan Yadav, Son Of Late Vijay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 7 Years Resident Of Diprapara, Karhi Kacchar, Post And Chowki - Belgahna, Police Station And Tahsil -Kota, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Appellant No. 2 To 4 Are Minor, Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Santoshi Yadav, 3 - Sweeti Yadav, D/o. Late Vijay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 6 Years Resident Of Diprapara, Karhi Kacchar, Post And Chowki - Belgahna, Police Station And Tahsil -Kota, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Appellant No. 2 To 4 Are Minor, Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Santoshi Yadav, 4 - Lucky Yadav, Son Of Late Vijay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 1 Years Resident Of Diprapara, Karhi Kacchar, Post And Chowki - Belgahna, Police Station And Tahsil -Kota, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Appellant No. 2 To 4 Are Minor, Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Santoshi Yadav, 5 - Smt. Kamlesh Bai Yadav, Son Of Late Sadhram Deshlahre, Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Diprapara, Karhi Kacchar, Post And Chowki - Belgahna, Police Station And Tahsil -Kota, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.27 11:11:25 +0530 2 6 - Shankar Lal Yadav, Son Of Late Sadhram Deshlahre, Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Diprapara, Karhi Kacchar, Post And Chowki - Belgahna, Police Station And Tahsil -Kota, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Santosh Kumar Anant Son Of Sadaram Anant, Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village - Raveli, Post - Rawan, Police Station - Suhela, District - Balodabzar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Truck No. C.G.-04-Jd-9250) 2 - Kamal Kumar Poddar, Son Of Jugal Kishore Poddar, Aged About 56 Years Resident Of Poddar, Transport B-21, Golden Market, Mahesh Cold Storage, Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck No. C.G.-04- Jd-9250) 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through The Divisional Manager, Local Office - First Floor, Agrawal Chamber Above Kendra Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck No. C.G.-04- Jd-9250) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 3 26.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 01/05/2023 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 594/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 23,67,624/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of Vijay Kumar Yadav, aged about 33 years, who worked as a skilled labourer. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the trial Court has erred in granting less compensation as the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 10,390/- whereas it ought to be Rs. 10,650/- as per the minimum wage notification prevalent on the date of the accident and moreover, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000/- x 6 = Rs. 2,40,000/-, however, it ought to have awarded Rs. 44,000/- x 6 = Rs. 2,64,000/-, therefore, the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 4 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,390/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, his monthly income should be Rs. 10,650/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and Rs. 2,64,000/- should be granted under loss of consortium. 6. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is computing the compensation as stated below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income Rs. 10,390/- Rs. 10,650/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 4,156/- = Rs. 14,546/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 4,260/- = Rs. 14,910/- 3. Yearly Income Rs. 1,74,552/- Rs. 1,78,920/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 i.e. Rs. 43,638/- = (-) 1/4 i.e. Rs. 44,730/- = 5 Rs. 1,30,914/- Rs. 1,34,190/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs. 20,94,624/- (x) 16 = Rs. 21,47,040/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,40,000/- Rs. 2,64,000/- Total Rs. 23,67,624/- Rs. 24,44,040/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 23,67,624/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 24,44,040/-. Hence, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 76,416/-. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 22/02/2021 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned 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/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet