1 2025:CGHC:55151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 664 of 2023 1 - Smt. Mohani Sahu W/o Late Manharan Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Andhiyarkhor, Thana And Tahsil Navagarh, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Neelam Sahu D/o Late Manharan Sahu Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Mother Appellant No. 1 Smt. Mohani Sahu, R/o Village And Post Andhiyarkhor, Thana And Tahsil Navagarh, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Kajal Sahu D/o Late Manharan Sahu Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Mother Appellant No. 1 Smt. Mohani Sahu, R/o Village And Post Andhiyarkhor, Thana And Tahsil Navagarh, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Vijay Sahu S/o Manharan Sahu Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Mother Appellant No. 1 Smt. Mohani Sahu, R/o Village And Post Andhiyarkhor, Thana And Tahsil Navagarh, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 5 - Vishram Sahu S/o Bahoran Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village And Post Andhiyarkhor, Thana And Tahsil Navagarh, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Geeta Bai W/o Vishram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village And Post Andhiyarkhor, Thana And Tahsil Navagarh, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Balveer S/o Ramsingh Aged About 45 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat Kargi Road Kota, Ward No. 12, Thana Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Mo. 8349469254. (Driver Of Bolero Pickup No. C.G./10/a.J./1961). 2 - Majhar Khan S/o Yunus Khan Aged About 29 Years R/o Tala Para, Ward No. 15, Thana Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Mo. 9691574696. (Owner Of Bolero Pickup No. C.G./10/a.J./1961). 3 - The Manager Oriental Insurance Company, Mandal Office, Paramand Bhawan, Rajendra Park Chouk, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Insurance Company Of Bolero Pickup No. C.G./10/a.J./1961 Date 01-01-2019 To 31-12-2019). 4 - Bhagwat Prasad S/o Ashok Sahu Aged About 23 Years (Driver Of Tractor No. C.G./08/p/6394 And Trooly No. C.G./25/f/6851). 3 5 - Sitaram S/o Bhaiyaram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Andhiyarkhor, Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of Tractor No. C.G./08/p/6394 And Trooly No. C.G./25/f/6851). 6 - Chola Mandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, 2nd Floor Simran Tawar, C.I.C. Building Pandari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Tractor No. C.G./08/p/6394 And Trooly No. C.G./25/f/6851). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Arya Shrivastava on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 12.11.2025 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 03/02/2023 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 98/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,72,550/- as compensation to 4 the appellants/claimants for the death of Manharan Sahu, aged about 33 years, who worked as a Rajmistri and Electrician. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount under future prospect, however, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1 and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2, the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded 40% future prospect. Furthermore, the Claims Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 40,000/- under loss of consortium whereas it ought to have awarded Rs. 44,000/- x 6 = Rs. 2,64,000/-, therefore, the compensation amount may suitably be enhanced. 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. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount as future prospect whereas it ought to have awarded 40% future prospect. Furthermore, the Claims Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 40,000/- under loss of consortium whereas it ought to have awarded Rs. 44,000/- x 6 = Rs. 2,64,000/-. 6. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra), Sarla Verma (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No . Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 11,130/- x 12 = Rs. 1,33,560/- Rs. 11,130/- x 12 = Rs. 1,33,560/- 2. Future Prospect NIL (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 53,424/- = Rs. 1,86,984/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 33,390/- = Rs. 1,00,170/- (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 46,746/- = Rs. 1,40,238/- 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs. 15,02,550/- (x) 15 = Rs. 21,03,570/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 44,000/- x 6 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 = Rs. 2,64,000/- Total Rs. 15,72,550/- Rs. 24,00,570/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 15,72,550/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 24,00,570/-. Hence, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 8,28,020/-. Respondents No. 3 and 6 are 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 @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 01/07/2021 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