Page No.1 of 5 IN MAC-239-2023 2025:CGHC:56353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 239 of 2023 [Arising out of award dt. 05.12.2022, passed in Claim Case No.1127/2021 (Kritika Dhiwar and others v. Avinash Singh Rajput and others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG)] 1 - Kritika Dhiwar W/o Late Devraj Dhiwar Aged About 22 Years R/o Sipat, Thana Sipat, And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Kishore Kumar Baiga S/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 56 Years R/o Sipat, Thana Sipat, And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Uttra Bai W/o Kishore Kumar Aged About 54 Years R/o Sipat, Thana Sipat, And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Avinash Singh Rajput S/o Vijay Singh, R/o Gupta Mohalla Sipat, Thana Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Car No. C.G. 10/z/7998) 2 - Vijay Singh Rajput S/o Late Arjun Singh R/o Gupta Mohalla Sipat, Thana Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Car No. C.G.10/z/7998) 3 - Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Address 1st Floor Galaxy Heights Byapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Thana Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Car No. C.G.10/z/7998) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 19.11.2025 SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 5 IN MAC-239-2023 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 05.12.2022, passed in Claim Case No.1127/2021 (Kritika Dhiwar and others v. Avinash Singh Rajput and others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,55,120/- as compensation for the death of Devraj Dhiwar. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.7,800/- per month which should be Rs.8,860/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding Rs.40,000/- only on the head of loss of consortium, whereas it ought to have been Rs.44,000/-x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/-. Even, on the heads of funeral expense and loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- each has only been awarded, whereas it ought to have been Rs.16,500/- each. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Page No.3 of 5 IN MAC-239-2023 appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.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 Rs.8,860/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Even, the learned Claims Tribunal has only awarded Rs.40,000/- on the head of loss of consortium, whereas it ought to have been Rs.44,000/-x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/- and also on the heads of funeral expense and loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- each has only been awarded, whereas it ought to have been Rs.16,500/- each. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 6. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Page No.4 of 5 IN MAC-239-2023 Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. 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:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.7,800 x 12 = Rs.93,600/- Rs.8,860 x 12 = Rs.1,06,320/- Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.31,200/-) = Rs.62,400/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.35,440/-) = Rs.70,880/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.24,960/-) = Rs.87,360/- (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.28,352/-) = Rs.99,232/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = Rs.14,85,120/- (x) 17 = Rs. Rs.16,86,944/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.44,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/- Total Rs.15,55,120/- Rs.18,51,944/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.15,55,120/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.18,51,944/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.15,55,120/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,96,824/-. The concerned respondents are directed to deposit the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.5 of 5 IN MAC-239-2023 amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. 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 s@if