1 2025:CGHC:42438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 538 of 2021 1 - (Deleted), Satyanarayan Bhagat, (Died) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 29-11-2023 2 - Kartikram Bhagat S/o Ghasiram Bhagat Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Katakliya, P. S. And Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattigarh ........(Owner Vehicle) --- Appellants versus 1 - Santoshi Bhagat W/o Late Premsingh Aged About 25 Years 2 - Karamvati W/o Ghurau Ram Bhagat Aged About 60 Years 3 - Ghurau Ram S/o Sadhram Bhagat Aged About 62 Years 4 - Anil Kumar Bhagat S/o Ghurau Ram Aged About 25 Years 5 - Minor Prince S/o Late Premsingh Bhagat Through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 01, Santoshi Bhagat, All are R/o Village Sihardhar, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Atul Kumar Gavel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : None present though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/08/2025 1. Appellant/Owner has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 03.09.2019, passed in Claim Case No.04 of BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.23 16:40:48 +0530 2 2018, whereby the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gharghoda, District – Raigarh (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 by claimants/respondents No.1 to 5, in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.13,55,200/-, fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation on non-applicant No.1 and 2. 2. Learned counsel for appellant/owner of offending vehicle would submit that appellant has filed this appeal challenging the amount awarded by learned Claims Tribunal on the ground that compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is on higher side. 3. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for appellant perused award and record of claim case. 4. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased Prem Singh Bhagat was aged about 26 years and doing the work of labourer and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Learned Claims Tribunal in absence of proof of income of deceased has assessed his income as Rs.6,000/- per month, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4 towards personal and living expenses, applied multiplier of 17 and computed the compensation towards loss of dependency. Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and for loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1, widow of deceased. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of consortium to parents and minor child of deceased also. Considering entirety of the facts of case as also the wage rate prevailing on the date of accident i.e. on 06.11.2017 as notified by 3 competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not assessed income of deceased more than the wage rate prevailing on the date of accident. Computation of compensation as discussed above is in accordance with settled law and in accordance with the decision in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 5. Upon going through the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and computation of compensation under impugned award I do not find that compensation computed and awarded to claimants to be excessive. 6. For the forging discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram