Page No. 1 of 5 IN MAC-865-2022 2025:CGHC:55886 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 865 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 12.05.2022, passed in Claim Case No.19/2021 (Smt. Nalini Pradhan and others v. Gupt Meher and others) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG)] 1 - Smt. Nalini Pradhan W/o Late Ghanshyam Pradhan, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bhothaldih, Post Chattigiroula, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2 - Omprakash Pradhan S/o Late Ghanshyam Pradhan, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bhothaldih, Post Chattigiroula, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - Satyaprakash Pradhan, S/o Late Ghanshyam Pradhan, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Bhothaldih, Post Chattigiroula, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Gupt Meher S/o Sanatan Meher, Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 03, College Road, Bargarh (Odisha) 2 - Sunil Kumar Agrawal, S/o Nathuram Agrawal, Aged About 46 Years R/o Near Amardeep Club, Ward No. 10, Bargarh, Post And Police Station Bargarh, District Bargarh (Odisha) 3 - The Liberty General Insurance Limited, Through Manager, Liberty General Insurance Limited, R/o Regional Office Address Gurughasidas Ward, M.M. Silvar Plaza Shop No. 120, First Floor, Ring Road, No. 01, Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No. 2 of 5 IN MAC-865-2022 For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 17.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 12.05.2022, passed in Claim Case No.19/2021 (Smt. Nalini Pradhan and others v. Gupt Meher and others) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.9,99,609/- as compensation for the death of Ghanshyam Pradhan. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which should be Rs.8,600/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding Rs.44,000/- only on the head of loss of consortium, whereas it ought to have been Rs.44,000/-x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/-. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. Page No. 3 of 5 IN MAC-865-2022 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 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. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.6,000/-, 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.8,600/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Even, the learned Claims Tribunal has only awarded Rs.44,000/- on the head of loss of consortium, whereas it ought to have been Rs.44,000/-x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/-. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 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. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 Page No. 4 of 5 IN MAC-865-2022 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 (+) 10% (i.e. Rs.7,200/-) = Rs.79,200/- (+) 10% (i.e. Rs.10,320/-) = Rs.1,13,520/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.26,400/-) = Rs.52,800/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.37,840/-) = Rs.75,680/- 4. Multiplier (x) 9 = Rs.4,75,260/- (x) 9 = Rs. Rs.6,81,120/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs.44,000/- Rs.44,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/- 8. Medical Treatment and Expense Rs.4,47,490/- Rs.4,47,490/- Total Rs.9,99,609/- Rs.12,93,610/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.9,99,609/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,93,610/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.9,99,609/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,94,001/-. The concerned respondents are directed to deposit the 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No. 5 of 5 IN MAC-865-2022 amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days 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 claim application before the Tribunal 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 s@if