1 2025:CGHC:56356 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 835 of 2022 1 - Dukhidas Manikpuri S/o Late Manohar Das Manikpuri Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Buchihardi, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sangeeta Bai W/o Dukhidas Manikpuri Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Buchihardi, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Vinod Kumar Banjare S/o Late Lasman Prasad Banjare Aged About 40 Years R/o Bodri, Bilaspur, Ward No. 07, Police Station- Chakarbhata, Tahsil- Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle No. C.G. 10 A.U. 1344) 2 - Bikash Kumar Singh S/o Ram Pravesh Singh C/o Santosh Kumar Singh, R.S./53 Ramavelly Raipur Road, Bodri, Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle No. C.G. 10 A.U. 1344) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.20 11:11:06 +0530 2 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Office Second Floor, Branch Gurukripa Tower Vyapar Vihar, Opposite Amber Auto Mobile Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle No. C.G. 10 A.U. 1344) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Bhaskar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 19.11.2025 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 02/09/2021 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 54/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,84,200/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of Nitesh Das, aged about 18 years, who worked as a Mechanic. 3 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- whereas it ought to be Rs. 8,600/- as per the minimum wages notification prevelant on the date of accident. Similarly, the Claims Tribunal has erred in granting Rs. 44,000/- under loss of consortium whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 48,000/- x 2 = Rs. 96,000/- and the Claims Tribunal has also erred in granting Rs. 16,500/- each under loss of estate and funeral expenses whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 18,000/- each, therefore, the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 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 as Rs. 6,000/- whereas as per the minimum wages notification prevelant on the date of accident, 4 Rs. 8,600/- ought to have been assessed as the monthly income of the deceased. Furthermore, Rs. 96,000/- ought to have been granted under loss of consortium and Rs. 18,000/- each ought to have been granted under loss of estate and funeral expenses. 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 Sethi1, 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:- Sr. No . Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 8,600/- x 12 = Rs. 1,03,200/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 28,800/- = Rs. 1,00,800/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 41,280/- = Rs. 1,44,480/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 = Rs. 50,400/- (-) 1/2 = Rs. 72,240/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs. 9,07,200/- (x) 18 = Rs. 13,00,320/- 5. Loss of Consortium Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 48,000/- x 2 = 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 Rs. 96,000/- 6. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 18,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 9,84,200/- Rs. 14,32,320/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 9,84,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,32,320/-. Hence, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,48,120/-. 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 @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 01/12/2020 till 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