1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1353 of 2019 1. Aayti Mandawi W/o Late Kosa Mandawi Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Ravindra Nath Ward Chita Colony Kirandul Post Office Kirandul Tah Bacheli Distt. Dantewada C.G., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2. Kumar Shanu Mandawi S/o Late Kosa Mandawi Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Ravindra Nath Ward Chita Colony Kirandul Post Office Kirandul Tah Bacheli Distt. Dantewada C.G., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3. Sunil Mandawi S/o Late Kosa Mandawi Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Ravindra Nath Ward Chita Colony Kirandul Post Office Kirandul Tah Bacheli Distt. Dantewada C.G., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Bhima Bhaskar S/o Sukko Bhaskar Aged About 26 Years R/o Present Add. Footbal Ground Near Prakash School Kirandul Tah. Bacheli Distt South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) Permanent Add. Vill. Dhanikarka P.S. Kuakonda Distt. Dantewada C.G., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2. Abdul Wahid Siddiqui S/o A.K. Siddiqui Aged About 45 Years R/o Masjid Para Near Bus Stand In Front Of Jayka Hotel Kirandul Tah. Bacheli Distt. Dantewada C.G., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3. Through Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Laxman Avenue Near Sahid Garden Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Arya Shrivastava, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.12.19 15:18:42 +0530 2 19-12-2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 25/2017 dated 6.3.2019 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 4,90,000/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Sanjay Mandavi. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 3.1.2017, Sanjay Mandavi was returning to Village Kirandul as pillion rider on the motorcycle with one Suraj Baghel. When they reached near Kirandul Bus Stand, the offending vehicle Tipper bearing registration No. CG-20-B-1166 being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle. In the accident, Sanjay Mandavi sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Claimants, who are the mother and brothers of the deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,65,000/-. They pleaded that the deceased was aged 27 years and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month working as driver. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed. 3) Learned counsel for the claimants submits that learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- per month overlooking the Salary Slip of the deceased and the evidence of employer. He further submits that learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 10 disregarding the age of deceased. He contends that learned Tribunal also failed to award separate compensation towards loss of consortium to the younger brothers of the deceased. He prays 3 to modify the award accordingly. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. She submits that learned Tribunal considered the evidence of Ganesh Prasad Sonkar (AW/3) who was the employer of deceased and the Salary Slip (A/1) issued by him. She further submits that this witness failed to specify the period of engagement and working hours of the deceased, therefore learned Tribunal discarded the evidence of the employer and the salary slip exhibited by the claimants. She contends that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Admittedly, claimants have pleaded that the deceased was a driver and Driving License (A/11) was exhibited by the claimants which was not refuted by the Insurance Company. Ganesh Prasad Sonkar (AW/3) has categorically stated that the deceased was his employee. However, in the Salary Slip (A/1), it is simply stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but in the said piece of evidence, period of engagement ; registration number of the vehicle and other particulars do not find any mention, therefore learned Tribunal rightly ignored this piece of evidence. 7) But at the same time, sight cannot be lost that the deceased was a driver and claimants have proved this fact by leading evidence which has not been rebutted by the Insurance Company, thus in my opinion, learned Tribunal ought to have treated the deceased a skilled laborer. 4 According to the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, minimum wages payable to a skilled laborer in January, 2017 was Rs. 6,648/- per month and learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. Furthermore, learned Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 10 whereas appropriate multiplier should have been 17 looking to the age of the deceased. Also, learned Tribunal has not awarded separate compensation towards loss of consortium to the younger brothers of the deceased, thus in my opinion, younger brothers of the deceased are entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000 each along with an additional sum of 20% i.e. Rs. 48,000 x 2 = Rs. 96,000/- in total. 8) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is re-computing the compensation as under: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 60,000/- (@Rs. 5,000 pm) Rs. 79,776/- (@Rs. 6,648 pm) 2. Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 30,000/- (@1/2) Rs. 39,888/- (@1/2) 3. Annual Income adding Future Prospect Rs. 42,000/- (@40%) Rs. 55,843/- (@40%) 4. Annual Income after applying Multiplier Rs. 4,20,000/- (@10) Rs. 9,49,331/- (@17) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- (mother) Rs. 1,36,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 96,000/- payable to 5 mother and two brother respectively) TOTAL Rs. 4,90,000/- Rs. 11,15,331/- 9) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,90,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 11,15,331/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,25,331/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact. 10) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a