(MAC No.904/2023) 2025:CGHC:60016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 904 of 2023 {Arising out of award dated 10-4-2023 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod in Claim Case No.110/2022} 1. Smt. Saroj Bai, W/o Shri Ghasi Ram Kureti, aged about 45 years, 2. Smt. Bhuneshwari Bai, W/o Shri Ramesh Taram, aged about 42 years, 3. Smt. Shalu Mandavi, W/o Shri Daman Lal, aged about 40 years, 4. Smt. Manki Bai, W/o Shri Ram Narayan Kavde, aged about 34 years, 5. Shri Mukesh Kumar, S/o Late Shri Dayalu Ram, aged about 28 years, 6. Shri Tej Kumar, S/o Late Shri Dayalu Ram, aged about 24 years, All are R/o Q.No.52, Ward No.12, Village Amlipara, Kochwahi, Thana Gurur, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Dular Kosare, S/o Shri Lalji Kosre, aged about 38 years, R/o Jodhapur Ward, Thana City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) (Driver) 2. Shri Parmeshawar Prasad Ghritlahre, S/o Shri Bharatram Ghritlahre, aged about 42 years, R/o Type 2, Q.No.413, Ward No.13, Bank Colony, Bade Bacheli, Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) (Owner) 3. Branch Manager, Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No.205, 2nd Floor, MM Silver Plaza, Near Mining Office, Mahaveer Nagar, Ring Road No.1, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer) ... Respondents SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.12.10 17:54:57 +0530 (MAC No.904/2023) For Appellants : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. Aditya Srivastav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 10/12/2025 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 10-4-2023 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod in Claim Case No.110/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- as compensation for the death of Dayaluram, who was a Retired Forest Ranger, aged about 71-75 years at the time of incident. The appellants herein/claimants are daughters and sons respectively, of deceased Dayaluram. 2. Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that the deceased was a Retired Forest Ranger and the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income to be ₹ 9,540/- on the basis of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2021, whereas, it has been taken as ₹ 7,500/, therefore, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. (MAC No.904/2023) 3. Mr. Aditya Srivastav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 herein/driver & owner of the offending vehicle, respectively, and Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 herein/Insurance Company, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal. 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 Dayaluram to be ₹ 7,500/-, 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 ₹ 9,540/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). 6. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was a Retired Forest Ranger, 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:- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.904/2023) S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 7,500/- x 12 = ₹ 90,000/- (Yearly Income) ₹ 9,540/- x 12 = ₹ 1,14,480/- (Yearly Income) 2. Future Prospects NIL NIL 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 = ₹ 30,000/- ₹ 90,000 – 30,000 = ₹ 60,000/- (-) 1/3 = ₹ 38,160/- ₹ 1,14,480 – 38,160 = ₹ 76,320/- 4. Multiplier (x) 3 = ₹ 1,80,000/- (x) 3 = ₹ 2,28,960/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 40,0000/- x 6 = ₹ 2,40,000/- Total ₹ 2,50,000/- ₹ 4,98,960/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 2,50,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 4,98,960/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 2,50,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 2,48,960/-. 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 @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 30-9-2022 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