1 MAC No. 590 of 2022 2025:CGHC:61287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 590 of 2022 1.Smt. Savita Dhivar W/o Late Manoharlal Dhivar, Aged About 41 Years; 2.Navin Kumar Dhivar S/o Late Manoharlal Dhivar, Aged About 18 Years; 3.Ku. Kajal Dhivar D/o Late Manoharlal Dhivar, Aged About 16 Years; 4.Karan Dhivar S/o Late Manoharlal Dhivar, Aged About 14 Years; Appellants No.3 & 4 by natural guardian Smt. Svita Dhivar; 5.Parasram Dhivar S/o Khorbahara Dhivar, Aged About 64 Years; 6.Gangabai Dhivar W/o Parasram Dhivar, Aged About 61 Years; All are R/o Village Tumgaon, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1.Jhasketan Pradhan S/o Divakar Pradhan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Chudakhai, Police ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.12.17 11:07:11 +0530 2 MAC No. 590 of 2022 Station Rajkishor Nagar, District Angul Odisa (Driver Of Truck No. OR 15 AM 1771 ). 2.Sukhavindar Singh S/o Gurumal Singh Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Datitola, Post Office Baraipali Police Station Anthapali, District Sambalpur Odisa (Owner Of Truck No. OR 15 AM 1771). 3.Branch Manager, Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Complex, 5th Floor, Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Truck No. OR 15 AM 1771). ... Respondents For Appellants :- Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Sangeet Kr. Kushwaha, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 16.12.2025 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 in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 11.01.2017 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in 3 MAC No. 590 of 2022 Claim Case No. 94/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of 13,35,184/- ₹ as compensation along with interest. 2.Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present cases. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased 4,710/- per month which should be 6,229/- ₹ ₹ per month as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh and also under the heads of loss of estate and consortium less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3.Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would submit oppose the 4 MAC No. 590 of 2022 prayer made by learned counsel for the claimants and submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 4.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records meticulously. 5.Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be 4,710/-, however, in ₹ the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased, who was a skilled labour, should be ₹6,229/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and ₹74,748/- per annum. Furthermore, the claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount under the head of loss of estate and awarded less amount under the head of consortium which is also liable to be 5 MAC No. 590 of 2022 awarded and enhanced. As such, the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced. 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 Sethi1, 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 ₹4,710 x 12 = ₹ 56,520/- ₹ 6,229 x 12 = ₹74,748/- 2. Future prospect (+)50% = 28,260/- ₹ total income = 84,780/- ₹ (+) 40% = 29,899/- ₹ total income = ₹1,04,647/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/5 = ₹16,956/- ₹84,780–16,956= 67,824/- ₹ (-) 1/5 = 20,929/- ₹ ₹1,04,647–20,929= 83,718/- (total ₹ income) 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = ₹10,85,184/- (x) 15 = 12,55,770/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate Nil 16,500/- ₹ 6. Funeral Expenses ₹25,000/- 16,500/- ₹ 7. Consortium 1,00,000/- ₹ 44,000/- ₹ 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 MAC No. 590 of 2022 to appellant No.1 8. Consortium to appellants No.2 to 6 ₹25,000 x 5 = ₹1,25,000/- 44,000 x 5 = 2,20,000/- ₹ Total ₹13,35,184/ - ₹15,52,770 /- 7.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹13,35,184/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 15,52,770/ ₹ -. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹13,35,184/-, the appellants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹2,17,586/- . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7 MAC No. 590 of 2022 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 Ankit