1 2025:CGHC:54669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 957 of 2022 1 - Smt. Bhagwantin Bai Sahu W/o Naresh Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Birejhar, Police Station Birejhar, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Neeta Sahu D/o Naresh Sahu Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bhagwantin Bai Sahu, R/o Village Birejhar, Police Station Birejhar, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Omeshwari Sahu D/o Naresh Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bhagwantin Bai Sahu, R/o Village Birejhar, Police Station Birejhar, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Indrani Sahu D/o Naresh Sahu, W/o Rupesh Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Dandesera, Post Armarikala, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Kamal Narayan S/o Bharosa Ram Satnami Aged About 41 Years R/o Dani Para, Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.11 11:14:46 +0530 2 2 - Raj Kumar Chainwani S/o Gagandas Chainwani R/o Ward No.15 Shikshak Colony Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, First Floor, Tank Business Tower, Upper Side Of Karnataka Bank, Near Fafadih Chowk, Station Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate 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 11/02/2022 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Circuit Court Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 45/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 10,90,437/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of 3 Naresh Sahu, aged about 38 years, who worked as a Mason. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in granting less compensation as the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 6,000/- whereas it ought to be Rs. 8,060/- as per the minimum wage notification prevalent on the date of the accident and moreover, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2, 3 and 4, as such, the amount of compensation, being on the lower side, 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 assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, his monthly income should be Rs. 8,060/- (as per 4 minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and moreover, Rs. 44,000/- each ought to have been awarded to appellants No. 2, 3 and 4 under loss of parental consortium. 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. 6,000/- Rs. 8,060/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 2,400/- = Rs. 8,400/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 3,224/- = Rs. 11,284/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 i.e. Rs. 2,800/- = Rs. 5,600/- (-) 1/3 i.e. Rs. 3,761/- = Rs. 7,523/- 4. Annual Income (x) 12 = Rs. 67,200/- (x) 12 = Rs. 90,276/- 5. Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs. 10,08,000/- (x) 15 = Rs. 13,54,140/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 8. Loss of Spousal Consortium Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- 9. Loss of Parental Consortium NIL Rs. 44,000/- x 3 = Rs. 1,32,000/- Total Rs. 10,90,437/- Rs. 15,63,140/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,90,437/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,63,140/-. Hence, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,72,703/-. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 16/03/2020 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