-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 466 of 2024 1 - Jayman Yadav S/o Banda @ Late Bomda Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tirathgarh P.S. Darbha, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Ramdai W/o Jayman Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tirathgarh P.S. Darbha, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Deepa Yadav D/o Jayman Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Tirathgarh P.S. Darbha, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dinesh Yadav S/o Jayman Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Tirathgarh P.S. Darbha, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.................(Claimants) ...Appellants versus 1 - Nadgu Baghel S/o Pandu Baghel Aged About 33 Years R/o Kotwar Para, Khandsara, Salemeta, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh...............(Driver) 2 - Smt. Purni Nag W/o Gupat Nag Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Mavlipadar, Gram Panchayat Chingpal, P.S. Darbha, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.............(Owner) 3 - The Branch Manager Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Guru Govind Singh Ward, Ward No. 25, 2nd Floor, Simran Towers, Pandri Road, Near L.I.C. Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh................(Insurer)..............(Non- Claimants) ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan,Adv. For respondent No.3 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For respondents No.1 & 2 : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.11.2025 1) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Motor Accident -2- Claims Tribunal, Bastar, place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.96/2023 dated 07.02.2024, whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.15,10,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Gajendra Kumar Yadav. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the motorcycle of the deceased Gajendra Kumar Yadav was dashed by a car bearing registration No.C.G.17/KW/6723 on 20.11.2022 and he lost his life in that accident. He would contend that the parents and siblings of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, wherein, they pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 22 years and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and they pleaded that the deceased was a petty contractor. He would further contend that the appellants claimed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. The driver, owner as well as insurance company filed reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. Learned Tribunal framed evidence; parties led evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. Mr. Nirala would submit that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased Rs.9,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would contend that the registration certificate of contractor of e-category was placed on record as Ex.A/9 to establish the fact that the deceased was a contractor and earning Rs.20,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal discarded the said document on the ground that no document has been produced to establish the fact that the deceased was awarded any private or Government contract. He would submit that in absence of any evidence, learned Tribunal ought to have treated the deceased skilled labourer and should have assessed the income -3- according to the minimum wages matrix. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/--Rs.20,000/- to claimants No.3 & 4 for loss of consortium, whereas, this figure should have been Rs.40,000/-- Rs.40,000/-. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 3) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Nirala. She would submit that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading evidence, therefore, learned Tribunal rightly treated the deceased as unskilled labourer. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. She would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5) A perusal of record would show that Ex.A/9 was produced by the claimants to establish the fact that the deceased was a petty contractor of e-category and his earning was Rs.20,000/-. No document was submitted with regard to income, therefore, learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased Rs.9,000/- per month. As the registration certificate of contractor was submitted before the learned Tribunal, the income of the deceased should have been assessed according to minimum wages matrix admissible to semi-skilled labourer, which was Rs.10,350/- per month. Further, learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.20,000/- - Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium to the claimants No.3 & 4. -4- 6) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below : Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.9,000 x 12=1,08,000/- Rs.10,350/-x 12 =1,24,200/- 2. Future Prospect 40% of 1,08,000=43,200/- 1,08,000+43,200=1,51,200/- 40% of 1,24,200=49,680/- 1,24,200/- + 49,680/- =1,73,880/- 3. Deduction 1/2 of 1,51,200=75,600 1,51,200-75,600=75,600/- 1/2 of 1,73,880=86,940/- 1,73,880-86,940=86,940/- 4. Multiplier 18 x Rs.75,600= Rs.13,60,800/- 18 x 86,940/-=15,64,920/- 5. Loss of Estate + Funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/- 6. Loss of Consortium(for appellant No.1) Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium(for appellant No.2) Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 8. Loss of Consortium(for appellant No.3) Rs.20,000/- Rs.44,000/- 9. Loss of Consortium(for appellant No.4) Rs.20,000/- Rs.44,000/- 10. Total Rs.15,10,800/- Rs.17,62,920/- 7) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.15,10,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,62,920/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.15,10,800/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,52,120/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry -5- interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of 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/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha