1 2025:CGHC:53008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1544 of 2019 1. Smt. Anjani Gupta W/o Santosh Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Vivekanand Ward 10 Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2. Santosh Gupta S/o Late Narayan Prasad Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Vivekanand Ward 10 Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3. Abhishek Gupta S/o Santosh Gupta, R/o Vivekanand Ward 10 Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4. Aayush Gupta S/o Santosh Gupta, R/o Vivekanand Ward 10 Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Brajbai W/o Late Narayan Prasad Gupta, R/o Vivekanand Ward 10 Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Uttra Kumar Sahu S/o Dhannu Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Jhalpa, Thana Hirri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 10 / R. / 2111)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Nitin Agrawal S/o Late Puran Agrawal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bilha Ektanagar, Thana Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 10 / R. / 2111), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager Rama Trade Center 2nd Floor, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insure Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 10 / R. /2111)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 1686 of 2019 1. Smt. Rekha Gupta W/o Late Dinesh Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Chandali Bandhawa Ward No. 2 Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Ghurvan Bai Gupta W/o Late Ramji Gupta Aged About 65 Years R/o Village - Chandali Bandhawa Ward No. 2 Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 3. Kunvari Bai Gupta W/o Late Ramji Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Chandali Bandhawa Ward No. 2 Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. Uttra Kumar Sahu S/o Dhannu Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Jhalpa, Thana - Hirri, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 10 / R / 2111) (Driver ), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Nitin Agrawal S/o Late Puran Agrawal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Bilha Ektanagar, Thana - Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 10 / R / 2111) (Owner ), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through - Divisional Manager - Rama Trade Center 2nd Floor, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 10 / R / 2111) (Insurer ), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Insurance company Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.10 .2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. With the consent of the parties both the matters are heard finally. 3. The appellants/claimants have filed these two appeals for enhancement of compensation against award passed in Claim Case No. 29/2018 and Claim Case No. 31/2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli dated 14.02.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed awards to the tune of Rs. 6,43,000 at the rate of 6% and Rs. 8,80,000/- at the rate of 6% respectively. 4. The facts in brief are that the deceased persons, namely, Aditya @ Ankit and Dinesh Gupta along with their family were returning from Sahdol in a 3 Bus bearing registration No. C.G. 28 G 0113 after attending marriage ceremony. On 01.12.2017 near Basantpur, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG 10 R 2111 drove it rashly and negligently, and lost balance, consequently the bus turned turtle, and in that accident, both the deceased sustained injuries and died. 5. Claim Case No. 29/2018 was filed on account of death of Aditya @ Ankit, who was aged about 21 years. At the time of accident he was an Engineering student. The mother, father, siblings and grand mother of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. Claim Case No. 31/2018 was filed by widow of deceased and parents on account of death of Dinesh Gupta, who was aged about 50 years at the time of accident he was working as Helper and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. 6. The Insurance company filed reply and denied averments made in claim applications. Specific plea was taken by the Insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have effective and valid driving licence. The learned Tribunal framed issues, and thereafter, awards were passed in both claim cases. 7. In MAC No. 1544 of 2019, Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate would argue that age of the deceased, namely Aditya @ Ankit, was 21 years and he was an Engineering student. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed notional income of the deceased Rs. 30,000/- per annum, which is at lower side. She would further argue that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants. She would contend that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for future prospect. She would pray to enhance the compensation. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Jangde. He would submit that the learned 4 Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and the claimants failed to prove income of the deceased. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Perusal of the record would show that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased Rs. 30,000/- per annum which appears to be at lower side. As the deceased was an Engineering student, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix to assess the notional income. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospect and loss of consortium. 11. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130, the compensation requires re-computation and the same is being revisited herein-below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 2500/- x12 = Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 8,580 x12 = Rs. 1,02,960/- 2. Future Prospect (40%) = Rs. 1,68,000/- (40%) = Rs. 41,184/- 3. Deduction NIL (-) 1/2 Rs. 72,072/- Rs. 1,02,960 + Rs. 41,184/- - Rs. 72,072 = Rs. 72,072/- 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = Rs. 4,20,000/- (x) 18 = Rs. 12,97,296/- 5. Loss of Estate NIL Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 5 7. Loss of consortium (for claimant No. 1) Love and affection Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 8. Loss of consortium(for claimant No. 2) NIL Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL Rs. 6,43,000/- Rs. 14,07,296/- 12. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 6,43,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,07,296/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,43,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 7,64,296/-. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 13. In MAC No. 1686/2019, Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate would submit that the deceased Dinesh Gupta was working as Helper and his age, at the time of accident, was 50 years. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income Rs. 6,000/- per month, which is at lower side according to minimum wages matrix. She would also submit that the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12 instead of 13. She would contend that on other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation. She would pray to enhance the compensation. 6 14. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Jangde. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. Perusal of the record and award would show that the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased Rs. 6,000/- per month which appears to be at lower side according to minimum wages matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12 which appears to be incorrect looking to the age of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants No. 2 and 3. 17. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130, the compensation requires re-computation and the same is being revisited herein-below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 6,000 x12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 8,580 x12 = Rs. 1,02,960/- 2. Future Prospect (25%) 1,62,000/- (25%) = Rs. 25,740/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 54,000/- (-) 1/3 Rs. 42,900/- Rs. 1,02,960/- + Rs. 25,740/- - Rs. 42,900/- = Rs. 85,800/- 7 4. Multiplier (x) 12 = Rs. 6,48,000/- (x) 13 = Rs. 11,15,400/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of consortium(f or claimant No. 1) Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 8. Loss of consortium(f or claimant No. 2) NIL Rs. 48,000/- 9. Loss of consortium(f or claimant No. 3) NIL Rs. 48,000/- TOTAL Rs. 8,80,000/- Rs. 12,81,400/- 18. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 8,80,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 12,81,400/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 8,80,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,01,400/-. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 19. Accordingly, both the appeals are hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant