-1- 2025:CGHC:42768 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1003 of 2022 1 - Motilal S/o Late Jhadu Ram Aged About 59 Years 2 - Eklavya Kumar S/o Motilal Thakur, Aged About 23 Years 3 - Manish Kumar, S/o Motilal Thakur, Aged About 16 Years 4 - Leelaram S/o Motilal Thakur, Aged About 30 Years R/o (Appellant No.3 is minor through natural guardian father Appellant No. 01 ) All R/o Ward No. 7 Joratarai, Post Bhathagaon-R, Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Toman Lal S/o Likhan Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Nishad Para, Sikosa, Tahsil Gunderdehi District : Balod, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2 - M/s Jinkushal Traders And Transport Through Bhikamchand Jain, S/o Gulab Chand Jain, R/o Mahavir Apartment, A-2/305 Bandha Talab, Durg, Tahsil And District : Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Micro Office Paras Complex, Station Road, Near Guruvdara, Durg, Tahsil And (Insurer), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate ___________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.23 10:53:18 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 22/08/2025 1. This is claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Seventh Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) vide award dated 24.06.2022 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.76 of 2021. 2. As this appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, involvement of offending vehicle Hywa truck No.CG-07-BK-9611 driven by non-applicant No.1, owned by non- applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3, motor accidental death of Kundan Korram and liability fastened upon non-applicants jointly and severally are not disputed by learned counsel for respondents/non-applicants, this Court is not discussing the facts as pleaded in the claim application, written statements and discussed by the Claims Tribunal in its award in detail and only considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants raises sole ground for enhancement of amount of compensation that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.7500/- per month overlooking the pleadings made in claim application that deceased on the date of accident was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. She prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation -3- accordingly. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that amount awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of claim case. 6. Perusal of the impugned award shows that learned Claims Tribunal while assessing income of deceased for computing amount of compensation has recorded a finding that no material evidence or document has been produced by claimants to prove income of deceased as pleaded in claim application. Pleadings made in claim application would show that claimants have pleaded occupation of deceased of doing labour work and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. 7. True it is that claimants have failed to prove income of deceased by placing admissible evidence, however, in absence of admissible evidence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed income of deceased considering the factors like cost of living, price index, wage structure and can also taken note of minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. 8. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the -4- Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur wherein monthly wages for ‘unskilled labourer’ has been fixed as Rs.8960/- per month. Hence, looking to the date of accident i.e. 05.01.2021, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8,960/- per month instead of Rs.7,500/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Apart from assessment of income by leaned Claims Tribunal to be erroneous, no other ground is raised by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation . 10. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income (A) Income 8960 x 12 = 107520 B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (107520 x 40% =43008) 107520+ 43008 = 1,50,528 (C) Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (1,50,528 x 1/2 = 75264) 1,50,528 - 75264 = 75264 (D) Multiplier of 17 75264 x 17 = 12,79,488 : Rs. 12,79,488 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 16,500 3 Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 16,500 4. Loss of consortium of Rs.44,000/- each to appellants/ claimants No.1 to 4 (44000 x 4= 176000) : (+) Rs. 1,76,000 -5- Total compensation : Rs. 14,88,488 11. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 14,88,488/- instead of Rs.12,80,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 12. Aforementioned enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 13. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. /- Sd/- d/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen