1 2025:CGHC:54667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1445 of 2022 1 - Saraswati Kumari Wd/o Prem Kumar Yadaw Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Baniyadeeh, Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Hema D/o Prem Kumar Yadaw Aged About 5 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt. Saraswati Kumari R/o Village Baniyadeeh Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Abhay Kumar S/o Prem Kumar Yadaw Aged About 4 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt. Saraswati Kumari R/o Village Baniyadeeh Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Aryan Kumar S/o Prem Kumar Yadaw Aged About 1 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt. Saraswati Kumari R/o Village Baniyadeeh Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Hinchharam S/o Late Rajaram Yadaw Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Baniyadeeh Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.11 11:14:49 +0530 2 6 - Narendra Kumar S/o Hinchharam Yadav Aged About 17 Years R/o Village Baniyadeeh Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Pawan S/o Late Dilip Vishvakarma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Lagra, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver And Owner Of The Vehicle) 2 - H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 3 Rd Floor, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, 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 3 13/09/2022 passed by learned 1st Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 484/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 19,40,760/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of Premkumar Yadav, aged about 26 years, who worked as Trackman in NTPC, Seepat. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,800/- whereas it ought to be Rs. 8,860/- as per the minimum wages notification prevelant on the date of the accident. Moreover, the Claims Tribunal has granted Rs. 15,000/- each under loss of estate and funeral expenses whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 18,000/- each under these heads. Furthermore, Rs. 2,40,000/- has been granted by the Claims Tribunal under loss of consortium whereas Rs. 2,88,000/- ought to have been granted under the said head. Therefore, the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 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 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 as Rs. 7,800/- whereas it ought to be Rs. 8,860/- as per the minimum wages notification prevelant on the date of the accident and Rs. 18,000/- each ought to have been granted under loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs. 2,88,000/- ought to have been granted under loss of 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. Income Rs. 7,800/- x 12 = Rs. 93,600/- Rs. 8,860/- x 12 = Rs. 1,06,320/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 37,440/- = Rs. 1,31,040/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 42,528/- = Rs. 1,48,848/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 i.e. Rs. 32,760/- = Rs. 98,280/- (-) 1/4 i.e. Rs. 37,212/- = Rs. 1,11,636/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = Rs. 16,70,760/- (x) 17 = Rs. 18,97,812/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 8. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,40,000/- Rs. 48,000/- x 6 = Rs. 2,88,000/- Total Rs. 19,40,760/- Rs. 22,21,812/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 19,40,760/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 22,21,812/-. Hence, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,81,052/-. Respondent No. 2 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 @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 22/10/2020 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 6 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