1 2025:CGHC:53023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1208 of 2022 1 - Smt. Samarin Bai W/o Late Ramesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gujra , Post Office Doma, Police Station Bhakhara, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Geeta Bai W/o Late Ramesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gujra , Post Office Doma, Police Station Bhakhara, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tulendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Gujra , Post Office Doma, Police Station Bhakhara, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 4 - Puskar Sahu S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Gujra , Post Office Doma, Police Station Bhakhara, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.10.31 10:40:37 +0530 2 1 - Jitendra Kumar Chandrakar S/o Bhagirathi Chandrakar Aged About 41 Years R/o Village E 20 Parshuram Nagar Purena, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address G 7/3 Res Colony Kanker Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rahul Kashyap S/o Shri Pramod Kashyap Aged About 27 Years R/o 65/1833 Sudhir Mukherjee Ward, Opposite Binda Sonkar School Ashwani Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Zonal Office First Floor Taank Business Tower Near Fafadih Chowk, Station Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants :Mr. Purnendra Khichariya on behalf of Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocates For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :Mr. Abhishek Nirala on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocates For Respondent No. 3 :Ms. Pooja Yadav on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocates SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 3 30.10.2025 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 06/08/2022 passed by learned Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 63/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,84,264/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of Ramesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 50 years, who worked as a Driver. 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. Moreover, Rs. 44,000/- has been granted for spousal consortium whereas Rs. 88,000/- ought to have been granted to appellants No. 1 and 2, as such, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, being on the lower side, may suitably be enhanced. 4 3. Learned counsel for the respondents 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 minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and Rs. 88,000/- ought to have been granted by the Claims Tribunal under the head of spousal 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:- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 Sr. No . Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 6,000/- x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 8,060/- x 12 = Rs. 96,720/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 25% i.e. Rs. 18,000/- = Rs. 90,000/- (+) 25% i.e. Rs. 24,180/- = Rs. 1,20,900/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 i.e. Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 60,000/- (-) 1/3 i.e. Rs. 40,300/- = Rs. 80,600/- 4. Multiplier (x) 13 = Rs. 7,80,000/- (x) 13 = Rs. 10,47,800/- 5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Spousal Consortium Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- x 2 = Rs. 88,000/- 8. Loss of Filial Consortium Rs. 40,000/- x 2 = Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 44,000/- x 2 = Rs. 88,000/- Total Rs. 9,84,264/- Rs. 12,56,800/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 9,84,264/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 12,56,800/-. Hence, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,72,536/-. 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. 17/11/2020 till 6 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