-1- 2025:CGHC:51625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1340 of 2024 1 - Smt. Ranjanbati Wd/o Late Sukal Netam, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Pipra, Bahigaon, Post Taraebeda, Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ----(Claimants) 2 - Ghasiya Netam S/o Late Suklal Netam, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pipra, Bahigaon, Post Taraebeda, Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ----(Claimants) 3 - Pankuram Netam S/o Late Suklal Netam Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pipra, Bahigaon, Post Taraebeda, Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ----(Claimants) ...Appellants versus 1 - Santosh Tandi S/o Hari Tandi, Aged About 44 Years R/o New Shanti Nagar Gorkha Colony, Ward No.31, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, P.S. Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) ----(Driver) 2 - Roshanchand Jain S/o Sukhlal Jain, Aged About 65 Years R/o Shankar Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---(Owner) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- Akashwani Road Jagdalpur, 1st Floor, M.M. Tower Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) -----(Insurer) 4 - The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.) ---(Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Adv. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. B.N. Nande, Adv. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ashuthosh Rathore, Advocate For respondents No.1 & 2 : None appears though served -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.10.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No.73/2023 dated 01.05.2024, whereby, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.11,48,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Sukhlal Netam. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that Sukhlal Netam met with an accident on 12.04.2023 at about 4:30 p.m. as Creta Car bearing registration No.C.G.04/NK/9700 dashed him. Resultantly, he sustained injuries and during the course of treatment, died. He would contend that age of the deceased was 50 years and he was earning Rs.500/- as mason. He would further contend that the claimants are widow and sons of the deceased. Mr. Patel would submit that the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased Rs.10,000/- per month treating him skilled-labourer, whereas, minimum wages payable to skilled-labourer according to minimum wages matrix was Rs.11,390/-. He would further submit that on other heads, learned Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 4) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents -3- would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Patel. Mr. Rathore, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed income of the deceased Rs.10,000/- per month. They would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) A perusal of record and award passed by the learned Tribunal would show that the deceased was working as mason and he died in an accident on 12.04.2023. His age was 50 years. Learned Tribunal has considered monthly income of deceased Rs.10,000/- whereas, according to the minimum wages matrix applicable in the month of April, 2023, monthly income of skilled-labour was Rs.11,390/-, thus, it can be held that the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased at lower side. The figure of Rs.11,390/- is rounded off to Rs.11,400/- and the compensation is being revisited herein below : Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.10,000 x12 = Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs.11,400 x 12 = Rs. 1,36,800/- 2. Future Prospect 10% = Rs.1,32,000/- 10% =Rs.1,50,480/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 =Rs. Rs.44,000/- (-) 1/3= Rs.50,160/- -4- 4. Multiplier (x) 11 = Rs. 9,68,000/- (x) 11 =Rs. 11,03,520/- 5. Other heads Loss of filial Consortium Loss of parental Consortium Rs.48,000/- Rs.96,000/- Rs.48,000/- Rs.96,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 8. Total Rs. 11,48,000/- Rs. 12,83,520/- Difference amount Rs.1,35,520/- 7) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.11,48,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,83,520/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.11,48,000/- the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,35,520/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions 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