1 2025:CGHC:53364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1082 of 2023 1 - Rupkunwar Nishad, W/o. Late Shri Hemlal Nishad, Aged About 47 Years, R/o. Village Bilaigarh (P) Post Office Balpur, Police Station Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Sakti (Earlier District Janjgir-Champa) (C.G.) (Wife Of The Deceased) (Claimant) 2 - Miluram Nishad, S/o. Shri Gangadhar Nishad, Aged About 77 Years, R/o. Village Bilaigarh (P) Post Office Balpur, Police Station Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Sakti (Earlier District Janjgir- Champa) (C.G.) (Father Of The Deceased) (Claimant) 3 - Ramkunwar Nishad, W/o. Shri Miluram Nishad, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Village Bilaigarh (P) Post Office Balpur, Police Station Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Sakti (Earlier District Janjgir- Champa) (C.G.) (Mother Of The Deceased) (Claimant) 4 - Dhananjay Nishad, S/o. Late Shri Hemlal Nishad, Aged About 26 Years, R/o. Village Bilaigarh (P) Post Office Balpur, Police Station Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Sakti (Earlier District Janjgir-Champa) (C.G.) (Claimant) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.10.31 17:01:38 +0530 2 5 - Lata Nishad, D/o. Late Shri Hemlal Nishad, Aged About 29 Years, R/o. Village Balpur, Police Station Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.) (Claimant) ... Appellants versus 1 - Pramod Singh, S/o. Shri Ram Bahadur Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Village Farhamuda Jutemill, Police Station Jutemill, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle) 2 - Vipin Singh, S/o. Shri Raso Singh Rajput, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village Fairafado, Post Bhagobandar, Police Station Khaina, District Jamui (Bihar) Presently R/o. Village Farhamuda Jutemill, P.S. Jutemill, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle) 3 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, Epip Rako Industrial Area, Sitapura Jaipur (Rajasthan) Local Office- Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. M.K.Beg, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 3 31.10.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 12.04.2023 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in Claim Case No.07/2020, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,93,750/- has been awarded to the claimants for the death of Hemlal, aged about 48 years, at the time of incident. 2. Appellants, who are wife, father, mother, son & daughter of deceased Hemlal filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 51,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased Hemlal was aged about 48 years was sole bread earner of the family and on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that 4 deceased Hemlal died in the accident arising out of rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.3. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved and after calculating the amount of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,93,750/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 4. Mr. Rishi Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded very meager amount, as the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month, which should be Rs. 7,800/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal may be enhanced suitably. 5. Mr. M.K.Beg, learned counsel appearing for the owner & driver (respondent No.1 & 2) and Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company (respondent No.3) would submit that the appellants have failed to prove the exact income of deceased by producing clinching and 5 admissible piece of evidence, hence, the learned Claims Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Hemlal to be Rs. 7,000/- per month, 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 should be Rs.7,800/- per month, which comes to Rs. 93,600/- per annum. 8. 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 @ 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 7000 x 12 = Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 7,800 x 12 = Rs. 93,600/- Add future prospects @ 25% Rs. 84,000 + Rs. 21,000 = Rs. 1,05,000/- Rs. 93,600 + Rs. 23,400 = Rs. 1,17,000/- Deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses Rs. 1,05,000 – 26,250 = Rs.78,750/- Rs. 1,17,000 – 29,250 = Rs. 87,750/- Multiplier of 13 Rs. 78,750 x 13 = Rs. 10,23,750/- Rs. 87,750 x 13 = Rs. 11,40,750/- For Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- For Funeral Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- For Consortium to Claimant No.1 Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 44,000/- For Consortium to Claimant No.2 to 5 Nil Rs. 44,000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,76,000/- Total Rs. 10,93,750/- Rs. 13,93,750/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,93,750/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,93,750/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 10,93,750/-, the appellants are 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% 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. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/-- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok