1 2025:CGHC:54668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1122 of 2022 1 - Smt. Shobha Dubey Wd/o Late Vivek Dubey Aged About 31 Years R/o Qr. No. 189, Muktidam Shivaji Marg, Ramnagar Supela Bhilai, Police Station Supela, Tahsil Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Baby Nitya Dubey D/o Late Vivek Dubey, Aged About 10 Months, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shobha Dubey, Aged About 31 Year, R/o Qr. No. 189, Muktidam Shivaji Marg, Ramnagar Supela Bhilai, Police Station Supela, Tahsil Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Yashwant Dubey S/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Dubey Aged About 63 Years R/o Qr. No. 189, Muktidam Shivaji Marg, Ramnagar Supela Bhilai, Police Station Supela, Tahsil Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Kanta Dubey W/o Yashwant Dubey Aged About 60 Years R/o Qr. No. 189, Muktidam Shivaji Marg, Ramnagar Supela Bhilai, Police Station Supela, Tahsil Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/Claimants HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.11 11:14:48 +0530 2 versus 1 - Tusar Swami S/o Late Shri Jaiprakash Narayan Swami Aged About 30 Years R/o Plot No.60, Road 19 B, Risali Pragati Nagar Bhilai, Tahsil Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Jyoti Prakash W/o Late Shri Jaiprakash Aged About 50 Years R/o Plot No. 60, Street 198, Shantikunj, Risali Pragati Nagar Bhilai, Tahsil Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Authorized Officer, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Srishti Upadhyay on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocates SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 10.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 26/07/2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 273/2021, whereby 3 learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 22,74,804/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of Vivek Dubey, aged about 36 years, who worked as Office Manager at Shanti Travells, Raipur. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal has only granted Rs. 40,000/- under loss of consortium whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 48,000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,92,000/- to all the appellants/claimants. Moreover, under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- each has been granted whereas Rs. 18,000/- each ought to have been granted, therefore, the compensation amount may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 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. A careful perusal of the record would show that the Claims Tribunal has only Rs. 40,000/- under loss of 4 consortium whereas all the four appellants are dependants of the deceased and they ought to have been granted Rs. 48,000/- each under loss of consortium. Further, Rs. 18,000/- each ought to have been granted under loss of estate and funeral expenses. 6. Thus, 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 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. Monthly Income Rs. 10,894/- Rs. 10,894/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 4,357/- = Rs. 15,251/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 4,357/- = Rs. 15,251/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 i.e. Rs. 3,813/- = Rs. 11,438/- (-) 1/4 i.e. Rs. 3,813/- = Rs. 11,438/- 4. Annual Income (x) 12 = Rs. 1,37,256/- (x) 12 = Rs. 1,37,256/- 5. Multiplier (x) 15 = (x) 15 = 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 Rs. 20,58,840/- Rs. 20,58,840/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 8. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 48,000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,92,000/- 9. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,45,964/- Rs. 1,45,964/- Total Rs. 22,74,804/- Rs. 24,32,804/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 22,74,804/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 24,32,804/-. Hence, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,58,000/-. Respondent No. 3 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 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. 17/06/2021 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 Harneet