-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1987 of 2019 1 - Premlal Ravi S/o Late Ramaram Ravi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Tilsiwa Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Maanmati Ravi W/o Late Ramaram Ravi Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Tilsiwa Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Phoolbai D/o Late Ramaram Ravi Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tilsiwa Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Vishnu Prasad Soni S/o Jagdish Prasad Soni Aged About 37 Years Board Office Manendragarh Road Near Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Manju Gupta W/o Shri Rajkumar Aged About 50 Years R/o Ugyav, Police Station Sonhat, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Board Office Manendragarh Road Near Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1945 of 2019 1 - Smt. Maanmati Ravi W/o Late Ramaram Ravi Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Tilsiwa Police Station - Tehsil And District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Vishnu Prasad Soni S/o Jagdish Prasad Soni Aged About 37 Years Board Office REKHA SINGH -2- Manendragarh Road Near Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer ), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Manju Gupta W/o Shri Rajkumar Aged About 50 Years R/o Ugyav, Police Station Sonhat, Tehsil Manendragarh District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. (Owner ), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Board Office Manendragarh Road Near Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer ), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Adv. For Respondent/Insurance : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Company For Respondent No.1 &2 : Ms.Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Patel, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31.10.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.38/2018 & 39/2018 dated 22.07.2019 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,10,000/- with interest @ 9% per anum on account of death of Ramaram Ravi and Rs.44,575/- has been awarded with interest @ 9% per annum on account of injury sustained by Maanmati. 3) The facts of the case are that on 16.01.2018 at about 5:30 p.m., Ramaram Ravi and Smt. Maanmati were returning home from Surajpur and when they reached near Suryoday Bhawan, driver of the offending -3- Bolero bearing registration No.C.G.16-B/3821, driving it rashly and negligently, dashed them consequently, Ramaram Ravi succumbed to death on account of injuries sustained, whereas, Smt.Maanmati sustained grievous injuries. 4) The widow and two children filed claim case No.39 of 2018 claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.20,80,000/- on account of death of Ramaram Ravi on the ground that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 60 years and he was a labourer earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 5) The Claim Case No.38 of 2018 was filed by Smt. Maanmati Ravi claiming therein compensation on account of injuries sustained by her in an accident to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. 6) Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate in MAC No.1945 of 2019 filed by the appellant/Smt. Maanmati Ravi for enhancement of compensation would submit that the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation. He would further submit that the claimant had sustained serious injuries over temporal region, mouth, eyes etc. and remained hospitalized from 16.01.2018 to 20.01.2018. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has not considered the medical bills and the prescriptions presented by the appellant/claimant and further awarded meager amount on conventional heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 7) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents -4- would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma.They would submit that the appellant/claimant failed to examine the treating doctor. They would further submit that the appellant also failed to submit medical bills before the learned Tribunal. They would argue that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on conventional heads. They would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9) A perusal of the record would show that the appellant failed to produce medical bills to establish medical expenses incurred in treatment. Learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.75/- against medical bills; Rs.750/- for loss of earning as the appellant remained hospitalized for a period of 5 days; Rs.5,000/- for conveyance; Rs.750/- for special diet; Rs.18,000/- for loss of earning and Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering and thus, awarded total sum of Rs.44,575/- with interest @ 6.50%. 10) As the appellant failed to examine the treating doctor and also failed to submit medical bills and prescriptions, in my opinion, learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. Accordingly, MAC No.1945 of 2019 filed by appellant/Maanmati Ravi for enhancement of compensation is hereby dismissed. 11) In MAC No.1987 of 2019, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the -5- appellants/claimants would argue that the age of the deceased namely Ramaram Ravi was 60 years at the time of accident and he was a mason earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- which appears to be on lower side. He would further contend that at the relevant time, minimum wages payable to semi-skilled labourer was Rs.7,930/- and the learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. He would argue that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospects and committed an error of law by applying multiplier of 5. He would further argue that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the children. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 12) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. It is submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 14) Learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased 66 years as mentioned in the postmortem report. The claimants could not adduce evidence to establish the fact that age of the deceased was 60 years or below 60 years on the date of accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal -6- rightly considered the age of the deceased 66 years. 15) With regard to notional income of the deceased, learned Tribunal has considered it Rs.6,000/- per month which appears to be on lower side looking to the minimum wages admissible to semi-skilled labourer, which was Rs.7,930/-at the relevant time. Further, learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the appellants/claimants No.2 & 3 who are children of the deceased. With regard to future prospect, as the age of the deceased has been held by the learned Tribunal 66 years, therefore, the claimants would not be entitled for compensation for future prospect. Learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 5 looking to the age of the deceased between 66 to 70 years, which appears to be proper. 16) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below : Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.6000 x12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs.7930 x 12 = Rs. 95,160/- 2. Deduction (-) 1/3 =Rs. 72,000-24000= Rs.48,000/- (-) 1/3= Rs.95,160- 31,720=Rs.63,440/- 3 Future Prospect NIL NIL 4. Multiplier (x) 5= Rs. 48,000 X 5 = (x) 5 =Rs.63,440 X 5 = 3,17,200/- -7- 2,40,000/- 5. Other heads loss of Consortium (for appellant No.1) Rs.40,000/- Loss of Consortium for Appellant No.2 & 3 =Rs.40000/+Rs.48,000/- +Rs.48,000/- = 1,36,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 8. Total Rs. 3,10,000/- Rs. 4,83,200/- 17) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,83,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,10,000/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,73,200/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions shall remain intact. 18) Accordingly, MAC No.1987 of 2019 is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha