-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 11 of 2020 1 - Bati Bai W/o Late Dharam Singh Aged About 50 Years Through Raghunath Bharti Son Of Late Dharam Singh Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Amagudapara, Cholnar, Chowki Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh...(Claimant), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - (Deleted) Laxman Kashyap (Died) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 21-12-2023. 2 - Smt. C.H. Balu Sulamma W/o Veerbhadra Rao Bala Vinayaka Mandir Road, Mudaru, District Pashchim Godavari (Andhra Pradesh)...(Owner), District : West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Laxman Avenue Shahid Park, Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh...(Insurer), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 35 of 2020 1 - Bati Bai W/o Late Dharam Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Amagudapara, Cholnar Chowki Bastar, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Sonu Ram Bharti S/o Dharam Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Amagudapara, Cholnar Chowki Bastar, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Raghunath Bharti S/o Late Dharam Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Amagudapara, Cholnar Chowki Bastar, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus 1 - Laxman Kashyap (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 21-12-2023. 2 - Smt. C. H. Balu Sulamma W/o Veerbhadra Rao, Bala Vinayaka Mandir Road, Mudaru, District - Pashchim Godavari ( Andra Pradesh ) ( Owner ), Andhra Pradesh REKHA SINGH -2- 3 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Laxman Avenue Shahid Park, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer ), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For respondent/Insurance : Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.12.2025 1) MAC No.11 of 2020 has been filed by Bati Bai for enhancement of compensation on account of injuries sustained, whereas, MAC No.35 of 2020 has been filed by Bati Bai and his two sons for enhancement of compensation on account of death of Dharam Singh. 2) The claimants have challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.68/2019 & 69/2019 dated 18.10.2019. 3) In Claim Case No.68 of 2019, learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,38,000/-, whereas in Claim Case No.69 of 2019, learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.6,90,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum. 4) The facts in brief are that on 04.01.2019, the deceased Dharam Singh and his wife Bati Bai were going to village Amagudapara and when they reached near Borpadar turning, the driver of the offending car bearing registration No.AP37-CR-4478 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the bike, resultantly, Bati Bai and her husband Dharam Singh sustained injuries. Both were taken to Medical College Jagdalpur. Bati Bai suffered permanent disability on account of injuries sustained over right thigh whereas Dharam Singh succumbed to death on 30.01.2019. 5) Bati Bai filed a Claim Case No.68/2019 wherein, she claimed a sum of -3- Rs.8,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her. Claim Case No.69 of 2019 was filed by Bati Bai and her two sons, interalia, on the ground that on the date of accident, age of the deceased was 55 years and earning Rs.8,000/- as he was a mason. In Claim Case No.69/2019, they claimed a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-. 6) In MAC No.11 of 2020, Mr. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that admittedly, Bati Bai/claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 55%. The disability certificate was issued by the competent Medical Board and the learned Tribunal has assessed functional disability to the extent of 55%. He would further submit that as the claimant suffered permanent disability, therefore, learned Tribunal should have granted 10% compensation for future prospects. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant Rs.5,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would further contend that the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.7,800/- per month and learned Tribunal should have taken that figure into account. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 7) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dhurandhar. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9) As pleaded that the claimant was a labourer, in absence of evidence, learned -4- Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix while assessing the income of the deceased. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.7,800/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing compensation. 10) Learned Tribunal further considered the functional disability to the extent of 55% but failed to grant compensation for future prospects. As the age of the claimant was 56 years, she would be entitled to get an additional 10% of income for future prospects. 11) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below : Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.5,000 x 12=60,000/- Rs.7,800/-x 12 =93,600/- 2. Future Prospect Nil 10% of 93,600=9,360/- 93,600 + 9,360/- =1,02,960/- 3. Loss of earning & multiplier of 9 Rs.60,000/- of 55% = Rs.33,000/- 33,000 x 9=2,97,000/- Rs.1,02,960 of 55% =Rs.56,628/- 56,628 x 9 =5,09,652/- 4. Loss of Amenities Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 5. For pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 6. For special diet Rs.7,000/- Rs.7,000/- 7. For conveyance Rs.7,000/- Rs.7,000/- -5- 8. For attendant Rs.7,000/- Rs.7,000/- 9. Total Rs.3,38,000/- Rs.5,50,652/- 12) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,38,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,50,652/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,38,000/-, the appellant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,12,652/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of award shall remain intact. 13) In MAC No.35 of 2020, Mr. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased Rs.6,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would contend that in absence of evidence, learned Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix to assess income of deceased. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.7,800/-. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/--Rs.20,000/- to the claimants No.2 & 3 for loss of consortium and said amount is at lower side. Mr. Dhurandhar would submit that the deceased remained hospitalized from 04.01.2019 to 30.01.2019. He would contend that the claimants submitted medical bills incurred in treatment of the deceased to the tune of Rs.2,72,765/- in Claim Case No.68 of 2019 and therefore, learned Tribunal did not consider them. He would contend that the certified copies of the medical bills have been placed on record along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. He would pray to grant compensation incurred in treatment. -6- 14) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dhurandhar. He would submit that the medical bills annexed along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were not presented before the learned Tribunal. He would contend that those bills were submitted in Claim Case No.68 of 2019, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to honour those medical bills. Mr. Tulsyan would submit that in Claim Case No.68 of 2019, the learned Tribunal has considered those medical bills and a sum arrived at by the learned Tribunal was Rs.2,35,554/-. He would contend that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC deserves to be rejected. 15) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 16) The age of the deceased was 55 years as held by the learned Tribunal. He was an unskilled labourer. Learned Tribunal assessed his income Rs.6,000/- per month which is at lower side. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.7,800/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the compensation. 17) The medical bills which have been filed along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, were produced by the claimant/Bati Bai in Claim Case No.68/2019 and therefore, those medical bills were not taken into consideration. 18) Learned Tribunal has not granted proper compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants No.2 & 3. Learned Tribunal considered medical bills but -7- refused to honour those medical bills as those medical bills were not submitted in Claim Case No.69/2019. The Insurance Company has not filed reply to application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Even the finding recorded in Claim Case No.68 of 2019 whereby the total sum of medical bills has been assessed by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,35,554/- has not been disputed by the Insurance Company. It is also not disputed by the Insurance Company that a sum of Rs.2,35,554/- was not incurred in the treatment of late Dharam Singh, therefore, the application moved by the claimants under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is hereby allowed. 19) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below : Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.6,000 x 12=72,000/- Rs.7,800/-x 12 =93,600/- 2. Future Prospect 72,000 of 10% = 7,200/- 72,000 + 7,200=79,200/- 10% of 93,600=9,360/- 93,600 + 9,360/- =1,02,960/- 3. Deduction 1/3 of 79,200=26,400/- 79,200 – 26,400 = 52,800/- 1/3 of 1,02,960=34,320/- 1,02,960 – 34,320 = 68,640 4. Multiplier 11 x 52,800= 5,80,800/- 11 x 68,640=7,55,040/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 6. Funeral expense Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium (claimant Rs.40,000/- Rs.44,000/- -8- No.1/wife) 8. Loss of Consortium (claimants No.2 & 3 Rs20,000 x 2 = 40,000/- Rs.44,000 x 2= 88,000/- 9. Medical expenses Not awarded Rs.2,35,554/- 10. Total Rs.6,90,800/- Rs.11,55,594/- 20) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.6,90,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.11,55,594/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.6,90,800/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,64,794/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of award shall remain intact. 21) Accordingly, both appeals are allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha