1 2025:CGHC:58847 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 556 of 2024 1. Kumeshwar @ Komeshwar S/o Tilakram Rana Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Sonaidongari, Police Station And Tahsil- Gurur, District Balod, C.G. 2. Smt. Khilendri W/o Kumeshwar Rana Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sonaidongari, Police Station And Tahsil- Gurur, District Balod, C.G. 3. Yaditi D/o Kumeshwar Rana Aged About 16 Years Minor, Legal Guardian Father Kumeshwar @ Komeshwar Rana S/o Tilakram Rana, R/o Village Sonaidongari, Police Station And Tahsil- Gurur, District Balod, C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Lukendra Yadav S/o Sadaram Yadav R/o Village- Sonaidongari, Police Station And Tahsil- Gurur, District Balod, C.G. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle, Maruti Suzuki Eco No. C.G./24/a N/9956). 2. S. Kumar Kothari S/o Kesh Narayan Kothari Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Yadav Chowk, Sonaidongari, Police Station And Tahsil- Gurur, District Balod, C.G. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle, Maruti Suzuki Eco No. C.G./24/a N/9956). 3. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, 11th Floor, B-7, Shriram Nagar, T.V. Tower Road Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle, Maruti Suzuki Eco No. C.G./24/a N/9956), Policy No. 2367/62259177/s.O./000, Insurerd Date 10/12/2020 To 09/12/2021. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.12.09 15:44:59 +0530 2 For Appellants : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None, though served For Respondent No.3 : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 4-12-2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod in Claim Case No. 164/2021 dated 7.10.2023 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 15,82,000/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Hemant Rana. 3) Facts of the present case are that on 26.8.2021, the deceased Hemant Rana, who was one of the occupants of EECO car, which was going to Village Sonaidongri and when they reached Tengna Barpara Poultry, offending vehicle EECO car bearing registration No. CG-24-AN-9956 being driven in rash and negligent manner, turned turtle. In the accident, Hemant Rana sustained injuries over head and died on the spot. Claimants, who are father, mother and sister of the deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,00,000/- and pleaded that the deceased was aged about 19 years and was earning Rs. 500/- per day working as mason. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; 3 parties led evidence and learned Tribunal passed the award. 4) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,500/- per month which is not in consonance with the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. He fairly submits that under conventional heads, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 5) There is no representation on behalf of respondent Insurance Company despite service of notice. 6) Heard learned counsel for the claimants and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7) Kumeshwar (AW/1) in para -3 has stated that age of the deceased was 19 years at the time of accident and he was a mason earning Rs. 500 per day. Insurance Company failed to examine any witness to rebut such piece of evidence. Thus, keeping in mind the evidence led by Kumeshwar (AW/1) and the pleadings made in the claim application, learned Tribunal ought to have considered the deceased to be a skilled labour. 8) The minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, minimum wages payable to a skilled labour in August 2021 was Rs. 11,150/- per month and learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. Also, learned Tribunal has not awarded any 4 compensation towards loss of consortium to two of the claimants. However, under other conventional heads Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and same does not warrant any interference. 9) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is re- computing the compensation as below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 90,000/- (@Rs. 7,500 pm) Rs. 1,33,800/- (@Rs. 11,150 pm) 2. Annual Income adding Future Prospect Rs. 1,26,000/- (@40%) Rs. 1,87,320/- (@40%) 3. Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 84000/- (@1/3) Rs. 1,24,880/- (@1/3) 4. Annual Income after applying Multiplier Rs. 15,12,000/- (@18) Rs. 22,47,840/- (@18) 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. 40,000 + Rs. 88,000 = Rs. 1,28,000/- TOTAL Rs. 15,82,000/- Rs. 24,05,840/- 10) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.24,05,840/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 8,23,840/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment 5 of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days. 11) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a