1 2025:CGHC:59957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1064 of 2019 1- Smt. Ashna Yadav W/o Late Dhaneshwar Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kosamtara, Police Station Fasterpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2- Bhupendra Yadav S/o Late Shri Dhaneshwar Yadav Aged 1 Month, Minor Through The Natural Guardian Apellant No.1 Smt. Ashna Yadav, W/o Late Dhaneshwar Yadav, R/o Village Kosamtara, Police Station Fasterpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1- Rajaram Chandravanshi S/o Keshav Ram Chandravanshi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ralhepur Khurd, Police Station Bodla, Tahsil And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2- Mukesh Rathore S/o Late Yuvraj Rathore Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No.5, Kanari Post Kharsara, Police Station Ungali, District Sivni, At Present R/o Through Rajaram Chandravanshi, Village- Salhepur Khurd, Polic Station Bodla, Tahsil And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3- Branch Manager The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. R/o Rama Trade Centre , 2nd Floor, Rajeev Plaza, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4- Smt. Chandrika Bai W/o Shri Chintaram Yadav Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Kosmatara, Police Station Fasterpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 5- Chintaram Yadav S/o Late Shri Santram Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Kosmatara, Police Station Fasterpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 10/12/2025 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. The claimants/appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 22.02.2019, passed in Claim Case No.28/2018 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.13,55,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum on account of death of Dhaneshwar Yadav. 5. Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants would argue that on 01.02.2018 at around 4 p.m., the deceased was going to his in-laws village- Karhi Dhapai from Mungeli and when he reached Mungeli–Raipur road, the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-09-J.C.0819, by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from back, as a result, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. He would further submit that the claimants, who are the wife and minor son of the deceased, filed a claim case under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, pleading that the deceased was working as a mason and he was aged about 26 years. They further pleaded that the deceased was earning 2,16,000 per annum and they claimed 39.50 ₹ ₹ lakhs as compensation. The parents of the deceased were impleaded as respondents in the said application. The driver, owner, and insurance company filed their reply to the claim petition. The learned Tribunal 3 framed issues, the parties led evidence and thereafter the award was passed. 6. Mr. Dewangan, further submit that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at 6,000 per month, which is on the lower ₹ side. He would contend that in the month of February, 2018, the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer was 7,930 per ₹ month, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken that figure for computation of compensation. He would also contend that the learned Tribunal granted a lump-sum amount of 70,000 towards loss ₹ of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; & Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546; thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants and contend that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased; thus, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. 8. Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the parents of the deceased would support the submissions made by Mr. Dewangan. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 26 years; though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was a mason earning 2.16 lakhs per year, but they failed to produce documentary ₹ evidence to prove his income, therefore, the learned Tribunal treated the deceased as an unskilled labourer. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at 6,000 per month, which is on the lower ₹ 4 side. In the absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix for computation of income admissible to an unskilled labourer. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2018 was 7,930 per ₹ month. 11. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded a fixed sum of 70,000 ₹ towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, whereas the claimants, including the parents, were entitled to 40,000 ₹ each for loss of consortium as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) & Nanu Ram (supra); thus, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and the same is revisited hereinbelow:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 6,000 x12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs.7,930 x 12 = Rs. 95,160/- 2. Deduction 1/4th =18,000, 72,000 – 18,000 = 54,000/- 1/4th = 23,790, 95,160-23,790 = 71,370 3. Multiplier X 17 = 9,18,000/- X 17 = 12,13,290/- 4. Future Prospect 40 % = 3,67,200/-, 9,18,000 + 3,67,200 = Rs.12,85,200/- 40% = 4,85,316/-; 12,13,290 + 4,85,316 = Rs.16,98,606/- 5. Loss of Estate 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.40,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of consortium Rs.15,000/- (appellants No.1 & 5 2/wife & minor son+ respondents No. 4 & 5/parents) Rs.48,000 x4 =1,92,000/- 8. TOTAL 12,85,200 Rs.19,20,606/- 9. Final Compensation 19,20,606 – 12,85,200 = 6,35,406 /- Rs. 6,35,406 /- 12. In view of the above calculation, the claimants shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 6,35,406/-. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation Rs. 6,35,406/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the appellants/claimants within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim