1 2025:CGHC:51626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 834 of 2024 1 - Smt. Hara Bai Sahu W/o Late Jivan Lal Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Khairwar (Bairagi), P.S. Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli (C.G.),...(Claimant) 2 - Dikendra Sahu (Minor) S/o Late Surendra Sahu Aged About 3 Years Maternal Grandfather Ganeshi Ram Sahu, S/o Late Raja Ram Sahu, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Khairwar (Bairagi), P.S. Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli (C.G.), Present Address - Village Mohdanda, Post Office - Chhatan, Tehsil Lormi, P.S. Lalpur, District Mungeli (C.G.), (Natural Guardian Grand Mother Hara Bai Sahu, Maternal (Nana) Ganeshi Ram Sahu) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Keshva Ram Sahu S/o Tulsi Ram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Sodhar, P.S. Jarhagaon, Tehsil And District Mungeli (C.G.),(Owner And Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Nutan Chowk Near Of Seepat Road Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.), Reg. Off - 15th Floor Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Canpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai (M.H.) 400013, (Insurer Of Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri Himanshu Yadu, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 For Respondent No.1 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.10.2025 1. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 14.2.2024, passed in Claim Case No.70 of 2022 by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.17,90,600/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Surendra Sahu. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that deceased – Surendra Sahu met with an accident on 15.7.2022 and succumbed to his injuries. At the time of accident, he was 29 years old. He would contend that the deceased was working as a Mason. He would submit that the mother and minor child of the deceased had filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein, the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased Rs.9,000/- per month whereas, minimum wages admissible to a skilled labourer was Rs.10,970/-. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has committed illegality by not awarding compensation for loss of consortium to one of the claimants. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. He would submit 3 that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the deceased was a Mason. The learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly income Rs.9,000/-. According to the minimum wages matrix prevailing at the time of accident in the State of Chhattisgarh, the minimum wages admissible to a skilled labourer was Rs.10,970/-. Thus, the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at lower side. The award would further show that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to one of the claimants. Thus, the compensation requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 9,000 x12 = Rs. 1,08,000/- Rs. 10,970 x 12 = Rs. 1,31,640/- 2. Future Prospect 40% - 43,200/- (1,08,000 + 43,200 = 1,51,200/-) 40% - 52,656/- (1,31,640 + 52,656 = 1,84,296/-) 3. Deduction (-) 1/3rd (50,400/-) (1,51,200 – 50,400 = 1,00,800/- (-) 1/3rd (61,432/-) (Rs.1,84,296-61,432) = Rs. 1,22,864/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = Rs. (1,00,800 x 17 = 17,13,600/-) (x) 17 = Rs. (1,22,864 x 17 = 20,88,688/-) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 88,000/- TOTAL Rs. 17,90,600/- Rs. 22,79,688/- 4 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.17,90,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.22,79,688/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.17,90,600/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,19,088/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months 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 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi