-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1902 of 2024 1 - Smt. Dukhiya Dhruv W/o Late Manharan Dhruv, Aged About 58 Years R/o Mungeli, Village Anda, P.S. Patharia, Tehsil Patharia, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellant versus 1 - Virendra Sahu S/o Hira Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Ward No. 6 Sodhar, P.S. Mungeli, Tehsil Mungleli, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Owner And Driver) 2 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Near Nutan Cfhowk, Sipat Road Sarkanda, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate For respondent No.2/Insurance Company : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.12.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Claim Case No.27/2022 dated 21.11.2023 whereby, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.7,18,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of Hari Chandra Dhruv in motor accident. 3) The facts in brief are that on 09.02.2021 when the deceased Hari Chandra Dhruv stopped his vehicle to attend call of nature, the driver of -2- the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.28H-6582 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the deceased, resultantly, he sustained injuries and during course of treatment died. 4) The mother of the deceased filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein, she pleaded that age of the deceased was 25 years and earning Rs.500/- per day as deceased was a mason. She claimed a sum of Rs.38,50,000/-. The Insurance Company filed reply and denied averments made in the claim petition. Learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter, impugned award was passed. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would further submit that in absence of evidence, learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix to assess the monthly income of the deceased. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for future prospects. He would fairly submit that on conventional heads, learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would pray to enhance the compensation passed by the learned Tribunal accordingly. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Kashyap. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the claimant failed to prove income of the -3- deceased, therefore, learned Tribunal rightly assessed it Rs.6,000/- per month. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8) The age of deceased was 25 years and according to the pleading made in the claim petition, he was a mason but the claimant failed to prove the fact that the deceased was a mason and he was earning Rs.500/- per day, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly treated the deceased an unskilled labourer. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2021 was Rs.8,960/- per month and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of deceased. Further, learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for future prospects. Looking to the age of the deceased that 19 years, the claimant was entitled for 40% future prospects, thus, 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.6000 x12 = Rs.72,000/- Rs.8960 x 12 = Rs. 1,07,520/- 2. Deduction (-) 1/2 of Rs.72,000=Rs.36,000/- (-) 1/2 of Rs.1,07,520= Rs.53,760/- 3 Future Prospect NIL 40% of Rs.53,760/- = 21,504/- Rs.53,760 + 21,504/- -4- =75,264/- 4. Multiplier 18 x 36,000 = Rs.6,48,000/- 18 x 75,264 = 13,54,752 5. Loss of Consortium (for the claimant) Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 8. Total Rs. 7,18,000/- Rs. 14,24,752/- 9) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.7,18,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.14,24,752/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,18,000/-, the appellant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.7,06,752/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions shall remain intact. 10) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha