(MAC No.32/2023) 2025:CGHC:57257 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 32 of 2023 {Arising out of award dated 7-12-2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Motor Accident Claim Case No.9/2020} 1. Smt. Kaneshwari, W/o Anantram Sen, Aged about 30 years. 2. Ku. Nandani, D/o Anantram Sen, Aged about 10 years. 3. Laxmikant, S/o Anantram Sen, Aged about 6 years. No.2 & 3 minor, through natural guardian mother Smt. Kaneshwari Sen, W/o Late Anantram Sen. 4. Sishupal Sen, S/o Shyamlal Sen, Aged about 60 years. 5. Smt. Devkunwar, W/o Shishupal Sori, Aged about 55 years. All r/o Village Dabena, Police Station and Tahsil Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Praveen Kumar, S/o Shyamsingh, Aged about 31 years, R/o Village Dahi, Police Station and Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of motorcycle No.CG-24/M-7392) 2. Amarsingh Kothari, S/o Dashruram Kothari, R/o Ward No.10, Village Karkabhat, Post Sorar, Police Station, Tahsil and District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Motorcycle No.CG-24/M-7392) 3. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Nearby Maruti Dealership, G.E, Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Motorcycle No. CG-24/M-7392) (Non-applicants) ... Respondents SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.11.27 10:58:25 +0530 (MAC No.32/2023) For Appellants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 25/11/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants herein/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 7-12-2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Motor Accident Claim Case No.9/2020, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 16,99,480/- as compensation for the death of Anantram Sen, who was a Barber by profession, aged about 33 years at the time of incident. The appellants herein/claimants are wife, children and parents, respectively, of deceased Anantram Sen. 2. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that the deceased was a Barber by profession and the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income to be ₹ 9,050/- on the basis of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2021, whereas, it has been taken as ₹ 7,800/, therefore, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 3. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 herein/Insurance Company, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal. (MAC No.32/2023) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Anantram Sen to be ₹ 7,800/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be ₹ 9,050/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). 6. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was a Barber by profession, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 7,800/- ₹ 9,050 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 3,120; total monthly income = ₹ 7,800 + 3,120 = ₹ 10,920/- (total monthly income) Yearly Income = ₹ 10,920 x 12 = ₹ 1,31,040/- (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 3,620; total monthly income = ₹ 9,050 + 3,620 = ₹ 12,670/- (total monthly income) Yearly Income = ₹ 12,670/- x 12 = 1,52,040/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ = ₹ 32,760/- (-) ¼ = ₹ 38,010/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.32/2023) ₹ 1,31,040 – 32,760 = ₹ 98,280/- ₹ 1,52,040 – 38,010 = ₹ 1,14,030/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = ₹ 15,72,480/- (x) 16 = ₹ 18,24,480/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 50,000/- ₹ 44,000/- x 4 = 1,76,000/- 8. Loss of spousal Consortium ₹ 44,000/- ₹ 44,000/- Total ₹ 16,99,480/- ₹ 20,77,480/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 16,99,480/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 20,77,480/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 16,99,480/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 3,78,000/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 20-1- 2020 till its realisation. 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 Soma