1 2025:CGHC:53293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1779 of 2019 1 - Smt. Pinki Yadav W/o Late Malkham Yadav Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, Police Station- Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shubham Yadav S/o Late Malkham Yadav Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Pinki Yadav, Resident Of Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, Police Station- Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Basan Bai W/o Shriram Yadav Aged About 51 Years Resident Of Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, Police Station- Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shriram Yadav S/o Late Gulam Yadav Aged About 51 Years Resident Of Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, Police Station- Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rajesh Diwakar S/o Saheblal Diwakar Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village - Derha Kapa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. 09j F-0938), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ganesh Kurre S/o Ratan Lal Kurre Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Near Hanuman Mandir, Mainpura, Police Station - Pandaria, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.(Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-09-Jf-0938), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh NIRMALA RAO 2 3 - Branch Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor. V.R. Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-09-Jf-0938)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondents : None though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31.10.2025 1. The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 6.5.2019, passed in Claim Case No.659 of 2018 by the learned Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.7,34,020/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 8% per annum on account of death of Malkham Yadav. 2. The facts of the present case, in brief, are that on 2.3.2018 at about 2:15 pm when Malkham Yadav was returning from his in-laws house on his motorcycle, the driver of the offending motorbike bearing registration No.C.G.09-JF-0938, by driving rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Consequently, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. There was a head on collusion between the two motorbikes. The age of the deceased was 28 years and he was a sweet-maker earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 3 The claimants are the wife, child and parents of the deceased. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle as well as the Insurance Company filed their replies and denied the averments made in the claim petition. Learned Tribunal framed issues; the parties led evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. While deciding issue No.2, the learned Tribunal held riders of bikes were 50-50% responsible for the accident. The finding was recorded by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased Rs.6,200/-, which is on the lower side according to the minimum wages matrix applicable at the relevant time. She would further contend that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to claimants No.2 to 4. She would pray to enhance the compensation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased Rs.6,200/- whereas, the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of March, 2018 was Rs.7,930/-, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the said amount for computation. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to claimants No.2 to 4. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below: 4 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 6,200 x12 = Rs. 74,400/- Rs. 7,930 x 12 = Rs. 95,160/- 2. Future Prospect 40% - 29,760/- (74,400 + 29,760 = 1,04,160/-) 40% - 38,064/- (95,160 + 38,064 = 1,33,224/-) 3. Deduction (-) 1/4th (26,040/-) (1,04,160 – 26,040 = 78,120/- (-) 1/4th (61,432/-) (Rs.1,84,296-61,432) = Rs. 1,22,864/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = Rs. (78,120 x 17 = 13,28,040/-) (x) 17 = Rs. (1,22,864 x 17 = 20,88,688/-) 5. Contributory negligence 50% (6,64,020/-) (Rs.13,28,040- 6,64,020 = 6,64,020/-) 50% (10,44,344/-) (Rs.20,88,688 – 10,44,344 = 10,44,344/-) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 48,000 x 3 = 1,44,000 + 40,000 = 1,84,000/- (Claimants No.2 to 4) TOTAL Rs. 7,34,020/- Rs. 12,58,344/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.7,34,020/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,58,344/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,34,020/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,24,324/-. The Insurance Company 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 @ 8% per annum from the 5 date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi