(MAC No.1262/2022) 2025:CGHC:58911 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1262 of 2022 {Arising out of award dated 13-5-2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Motor Accident Claim Case No.602/2019} 1. Manju Sahu, W/o Manoj Kumar Sahu, aged about 46 years, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Bodri Road, Kasaridih, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Manoj Kumar Sahu, S/o Khorbahra Ram Sahu, aged about 50 years, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Bodri Road, Kasaridih, Durg, District Drug, Chhattisgarh. 3. Dushyant Kumar Sahu, S/o Manoj Kumar Sahu, aged about 22 years, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Bodri Road, Kasaridih, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Rahul Kaul, S/o Ram Khilavan Kaul, aged about 28 years, R/o Kocharei, PO Padarei, PS & Tahsil Sirmor, District Riwa (M.P.) 2. Mahendra Kumar Jangda, S/o Bharat Singh Jangda, aged about 35 years, By Pandit Motors Transport Corporation, Ring Road No.2, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh/Flat No.301, Plot No.18/19, Sai Prasad Apartment, Netaji Nagar, Bardi, Nagpur, Tahsil & District Nagpur, Maharashtra. 3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Ground Floor, Commercial Tax Building, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shekhar Amin, Advocate. Single Bench:- SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.12.05 14:18:17 +0530 (MAC No.1262/2022) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 04/12/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants herein/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 13-5-2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Motor Accident Claim Case No.602/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 9,67,200/- as compensation for the death of Ankit Kumar Sahu, who was running Tuition Classes (skilled person), aged about 20 years at the time of incident. The appellants herein/ claimants are mother, father and brother, respectively, of deceased Ankit Kumar Sahu. 2. Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that the deceased was an Engineering Student and he used to take-up tuition classes and thus, he was a skilled person. He would further submit that the Claims Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the deceased was studying Engineering and he was earning some more income for his livelihood by taking-up tuition classes. He would also submit that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income to be ₹ 9,490/- on the basis of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2021, whereas, it has been taken as ₹ 6,000/, therefore, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. (MAC No.1262/2022) 3. Mr. Shekhar Amin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 herein/Insurance Company, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Ankit Kumar Sahu to be ₹ 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 ₹ 9,490/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). 6. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was a skilled person being studying Engineering and also that he used to take-up tuition classes, 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. v. 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:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.1262/2022) 1. Income ₹ 6,000/- x 12 = ₹ 72,000/- (Yearly Income) ₹ 9,490/- x 12 = ₹ 1,13,880/- (Yearly Income) 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 28,800/-; total yearly income = ₹ 72,000 + 28,800 = ₹ 1,00,800/- 40% i.e. ₹ 45,552/-; total yearly income = ₹ 1, 13,880 + 45,552 = ₹ 1,59,432/- 3. Deduction (-) ½ = ₹ 50,400/- ₹ 1,00,800 – 50,400 = ₹ 50,400/- (-) ½ = ₹ 79,716/- ₹ 1,59,432 – 79,716 = ₹ 79,716/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = ₹ 9,07,200/- (x) 18 = ₹ 14,34,888/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 45,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium NIL ₹ 40,000/- x 3 = ₹ 1,20,000/- Total ₹ 9,67,200/- ₹ 15,87,888/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 9,67,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 15,87,888/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 9,67,200/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 6,20,688/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a 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. 9-12- 2019 till its realisation. 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 Soma