1 2025:CGHC:59953 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1835 of 2024 1 - Smt. Hemlata Markam W/o Late Laxminath Markam Aged About 24 Years R/o Village And Post Gattasilli, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Priyanshi Markam D/o Late Laxminath Markam Aged About 4 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Hemlata Markam W/o Late Laxminath Markam Appellant No. 1, R/o Village And Post Gattasilli, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Taniya Markam D/o Late Laxminath Markam Aged About 2 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Hemlata Markam W/o Late Laxminath Markam Appellant No. 1, R/o Village And Post Gattasilli, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Meena Markam W/o Late Ghurau Ram Markam Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And Post Gattasilli, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Lateshwari Markam D/o Late Ghurau Ram Markam Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Gattasilli, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Lata Bai W/o Late Bhagwat Ram Netam Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chivarri Sankara, Post Office Gattasilli, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Daneshwari W/o Shivraj Netam Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Murumdihi, Post Office Keregaon, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus NIRMALA RAO 2 1 - Shailendra Kumar Markam S/o Siyaram Markam Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post Gattasilli, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Cg- 05/am-9480) 2 - Shyam Kumar Dhruv S/o Sukalu Ram Dhruv Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khirkitola, Police Station Rudri, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhttisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Cg-05/am-9480) 3 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Through Branch Manager, Office No. 501,509, 512 Fifth Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park Plot No. 1, Block-9, Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Cg-05/am-9480) --- Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants/ Claimants : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For Insurance Company : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.12.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Claim Case No.50 of 2023 dated 15.7.2024 whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.20,83,220/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Laxminath Markam. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that on 11.11.2022 at about 7:00 pm, the motorcycle of the deceased was 3 dashed by another motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.05 AM 9480, resultantly, he sustained injuries and during the course of treatment, succumbed to death. He would submit that the claimants who are widow, two minor children, mother and sisters filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 29 years and earning Rs.500/- per day. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/- per month and thereafter, deducted wages for four days and finally considered it Rs.9,100/-. He would contend that there was no need to deduct wages for four days in absence of any such provision or evidence. He would contend that the learned Tribunal also committed an error of law while granting meagre compensation towards loss of consortium to claimants No.2 & 3, who are children of the deceased. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation towards loss of consortium to mother of the deceased. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the claimants. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is also argued by respondent No.3 that the claimants could not prove the income of the deceased. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.350/- per day and assumed that the deceased did work for 26 days in a 4 month and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,100/-. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to deduction of wages for four days appears to be erroneous. In absence of any evidence, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to deduct four days wages. The Insurance Company and driver and owner could not lead evidence to the effect that the deceased used to work for 26 days in a month. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to deduction of wages for four days is hereby set aside. Learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/-. The Insurance Company has not challenged the finding with regard to income of the deceased by filing an appeal or cross appeal. Thus, the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.10,500/- per month. Learned Tribunal has granted Rs.48,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased but failed to award proper compensation for loss of consortium to the children and the mother. The children and mother would be entitled to get Rs.44,000/- each for loss of consortium. On other heads, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 9,100 x12 = Rs. 1,09,200/- Rs. 10,500 x12 = Rs. 1,26,000/- 2. Future prospects 40% = 1,09,200 + 43,680 = 1,52,880/- 40% = 1,26,000 + 50,400 = 1,76,400/- 3. Deduction 1/4th (38,220/-) 1,52,880 – 38,220 = 1,14,660/- 1/4th (44,100/-) 1,76,400 – 44,100 = 1,32,300/- 5 4. Multiplier X 17 = Rs.1,14,660 x 17 = 19,49,220/- X 17 = Rs.1,32,300 x 17 = 22,49,100/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium (appellant No.1) Rs. 48,000/- Rs.48,000/- (wife) + Rs.44,000 x 3 = 1,32,000/- (appellants No.2 to 4, mother and two children) 8. Love and affection (appellants No.2 & 3) Rs.25,000 x 2 = Rs.50,000/- Rs.25,000 x 2 = Rs.50,000/- TOTAL Rs. 20,83,220/- Rs. 25,15,100/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.20,83,220/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.25,15,100/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.20,83,220/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,31,880/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days 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 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. 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 6