1 2025:CGHC:59839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1493 of 2019 1. Ghana Ram Nayak S/o Late Shri Surajbhan Aged About 52 Years Occupation - Nirashrit, Caste Halba, R/o Village Parsadih, Police Station And Tahsil Daundilohara, District - Balod, (Chhattisgarh)., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Chandrabati W/o Ghana Ram Nayak Aged About 45 Years Occupation - Nirashrit, Caste Halba, R/o Village Parsadih, Police Station And Tahsil Daundilohara, District - Balod, (Chhattisgarh)., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Yashwant Kumar Sahu R/o Village Parsuli, Police Station Dewari And Tahsil Daundilohara, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Kunti Bai W/o Manharan Prasad Tiwari Aged About 47 Years Caste Brahmin R/o Village Kapsi, Police Station And Tahsil Daundilohara, District Balod, (Chhattisgarh) (Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. Gupesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Yashwant Kumar Sahu Caste Teli, R/o Village Parsuli, Police Station Dewari And Tahsil Daundilohara, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3.1 - (A) Gajendra Kumar S/o Shri Vishnu Prasad R/o Marrarpara Kisna, Village Kisna, Tahsil Doundilohara , District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.12.16 16:48:37 +0530 2 4. United Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Office, Opposite To United Hospital, Above Syndicate Bank, Second Floor, Old Bus Stand Road, Rajnandgaon, Police Station Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants (s) : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate with Mr. Prakhar Dushore,Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. R.K. Pali, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the 1st Additional Claim Tribunal, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 02/2018 in case of Ghanaram Nayak & Another Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Others. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that on 27.11.2017 deceased Yaman Kumar was returning to village Parsadih from Marri on his motorcycle. It is also case of the claimants, that the accident occurred at village Parsula and Khesthabar where the driver of the offending vehicle Mahndra Bolero bearing registration No. CG/07/M/5248 dashed the deceased in rash and negligent manner causing serious injury which succumbed to death immediately. It is also case of the claimants that on account of said accident a criminal Case No. 140 of 2017 under Section 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC was registered against the respondent No.1. It is also case of the claimants, that the deceased was 20 years old and he was trainee of 3 ITI, Narayanpur and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month which necessiated the claimants to file claim case before the tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor vehicle Act. 3. The respondent No.1 has filed the written statement denying the fact that the vehicle was driven by the deceased rashly and negligently. It has also been contended that motorcycle driven by the deceased was also insured and the same was driven by the deceased carelessly and negligently, therefore, it is case of contributory negligence, as such Insurance Company of the motorcycle should be arrayed as party to the case. 4. The Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the fact but they have not disputed that the vehicle Bolero was not insured with them and plea regarding fundamental breach of condition has been taken by them and has prayed for dismissal of the claim case. 5. Learned Tribunal considering the evidence, material on record has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 4,000/- per month since the deceased was aged about 20 years and accordingly he has applied multiplier of 18 and accordingly calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,62,000/- with interest from 22.04.2019 till the actual award is satisfied @ 9 % per annuam after deducting notional expenditure carried out by the deceased. Being aggrieved with the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal, the Appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the deceased was survived by mother and father, therefore, they are entitled to get 4 consortium as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others in 2018 (18) SCC 130, Sharad Singh (Dead) Through LR vs. H.D. Narang and Anr decided in Civil appeal No. 8136 of 2024 on 26 September 2025 and S. Mohammed Hakkim vs National Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors. Reported in 2025 INSC 905. He would further submit that claims tribunal without considering the relevant material on record has taken income of the deceased on lower side, therefore, compensation should have been increased by this Court as per the actual minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident and would pray for enhancement of compensation amount. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance company would submit that learned claims tribunal has not committed any illegality in granting the compensation and it is well settled legal position of law that compensation should be just and proper not a bonanza, therefore, award passed by the tribunal does not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court as the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. To substantiate her submission, she has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Bhoori Bai vs. Gopal Singh reported 2024 Supreme (Online) MP 13295, Smt. Kiran Sharma and others vs. Ramgopal Gurjar (deleted) and others 5 reproted 2025 Supreme (Online) MP 2028 and Smt. P.Vijaya vs. J. Srinivas reported 2025 Supreme (Telangana) 927. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Submission made by counsel for the claimants is that the compensation has been passed on lower side is being considered by this court. It is not in dispute that the Insurance company is unable to dislodge the finding that the deceased was working as trainee ITI and skilled labour, therefore, his minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time Rs 8,580/- and future prospect of monthly income i.e. Rs. 3,432/- thus his monthly income will be Rs. 12,012/- and yearly income will be Rs. 12,012 x 12= 1,44,144/- deduction of ½ that will be 72,072/-, multiplier will be used 18 as the age of deceased was 20 years at the time of incident, loss of dependency will be 72,072 x 18 = 12,97,296/-. The claimants are also entitled to get conventional heads increasing 20 % as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Loss of consortium to claimants parent 1 and 2 Rs. 48,000/- each which comes to Rs. 96,000/-, Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- Total compensation Rs. 14,29.296/- Total enhanced amount arrived at Rs. 9,67,296/-(Rs. 14,29,296 – Rs 4,62,200). The claimants are also entitled to get 7.5 % on enhanced amount which will come to Rs. 9,67,296 X 7.5/100 X 8= 5,80,378/- 6 towards interest. Thus the claimants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,09,674 – Rs. 4,62,000. 10. Thus the claimants are entitled to get compensation on the earning of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 15,47,674/- with interest also. As such the claimants are entitled to get additional compensation as awarded by the claims Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 15,47,674/- after the adding of interest @ 7.5% per annuam within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 11. The appeal is allowed in part by modifying the award as stated above. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh