1 2025:CGHC:59685 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2010 of 2019 1 - Lala @ Lalu Ram Sahu S/o Shyam Sunder Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bhatapara, Dharampura, P. S. Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indra Kumar Sahu S/o Arjun Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Neetu Fancy Stores, Dharampura, P. S. Mana District Raipur Chhattisgarh .........(Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Near Bajrang Hotel, G. E. Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ..........(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 2011 of 2019 1 - Sandeep Sahu S/o Rohit Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Khamardih, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Indra Kumar Sahu S/o Arjun Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Neetu Fancy Stores, Dharampura, P. S. Mana District Raipur Chhattisgarh .........(Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh NIRMALA RAO 2 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Near Bajrang Hotel, G. E. Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ..........(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 2190 of 2019 1 - Smt. Shashi Prabha Sahu W/o Late Rupesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dharampura, P. S. Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Harshita Sahu D/o Late Rupesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 6 Years No. 2 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shashi Prabha Sahu, (Appellant No. 01), R/o Village Dharampura, P. S. Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tanmay Sahu S/o Late Rupesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 2 Years No. 3 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shashi Prabha Sahu, (Appellant No. 01), R/o Village Dharampura, P. S. Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Meena Sahu W/o Arjun Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Dharampura, P. S. Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Arjun Sahu S/o Manrakhan Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Dharampura, P. S. Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Indra Kumar Sahu S/o Arjun Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Neetu Fancy Stores, Dharampura, P. S. Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh........(Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Near Bajrang Hotel, G. E. Road, Raipur District Raiur Chhattisgarh ..........(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 2012 of 2019 1 - Rakesh Sahu S/o. Laxman Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o. Village Bhathapara, Dharampura, P.S. Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Indra Kumar Sahu S/o Arjun Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o. Near Neetu Fancy Stores, Dharampura, P.S. Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through- Divisional Manager, Division Office, Near Bajrang Hotel, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 2016 of 2019 1 - Jagdish Sahu S/o Ramcharan Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dharampura, Police Station Mana, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Indra Kumar Sahu S/o Arjun Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Neetu Fancy Stores, Dharampura, Police Station Mana, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through - Divisional Manager, Division Office, Near Bajrang Hotel, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 4 MAC No. 2157 of 2019 1 - Smt. Suman Sahu W/o Late Manoj Kumar Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Dharampura, Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Peehu Sahu D/o Late Manoj Kumar Sahu Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Suman Sahu (Appellant No.1), R/o Village Dharampura, Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Shanti Sahu W/o Feku Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Dharampura, Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Feku Ram Sahu S/o Manrakhan Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Dharampura, Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Indra Kumar Sahu S/o Arjun Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Neetu Fancy Stores, Dharampura, Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Near Bajrang Hotel, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-18, C-1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1821 of 2019 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited By Divisional Manager Divisional Office Near Bajrang Hotel G. E. Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Singnatory, Manager Suit Claim Legal Hub, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Above Axix Bank, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 5 1 - Smt. Shashi Prabha Sahu W/o Late Rupesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dharampura Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Ku. Harshita Sahu D/o Late Rupesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 6 Years Through Guardian Mother Shashi Prabha Sahu, R/o Village Dharampura Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Tanmay Sahu S/o Late Rupesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 2 Years Through Guardian Mother Shashi Prabha Sahu, R/o Village Dharampura Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Meena Sahu W/o Arjun Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Dharampura Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Arjun Sahu S/o Manrakhan Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Dharampura Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Indra Kumar Sahu S/o Arjun Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Dharampura Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - For Appellants/ claimants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Insurance Company : Shri B.N. Nande, Advocate. For Other Respondents : None though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.12.2025 1. MAC Nos. 2010 of 2019, 2011 of 2019, 2012 of 2019 and 2016 of 2019 have been preferred by the claimants/ injured persons for enhancement of compensation and MAC No.2157 of 2019 has been preferred by the legal representatives of deceased – Manoj Kumar Sahu for enhancement of compensation. MAC No.2190 of 2019 has 6 been preferred by the legal representatives of deceased - Rupesh Kumar Sahu for enhancement of compensation. MAC No. 1821 of 2019 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation passed in the claim case filed by the legal representatives of deceased Rupesh Kumar Sahu. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 26.1.2018, injured persons alongwith Manoj Kumar Sahu and Rupesh Kumar Sahu were going to Jagdalpur from Dharampura in a Scorpio bearing registration No.C.G. 18 C 1298, when the vehicle reached near Kosa Centre pulia, police station Bhanpuri, District Bastar, the driver of the said vehicle drove it rashly and negligently, resultantly, it turned turtle. Manoj Kumar Sahu and Rupesh Kumar Sahu lost their lives in the said accident whereas, Lala @ Lalu Ram Sahu, Sandeep Sahu, Rakesh Kumar Sahu and Jagdish Sahu sustained serious injuries. They filed separate claim cases before the learned Tribunal and the details of their respective claim cases are given below: Sl. No. Case No. Claim Case No. 1. MAC No.2010 of 2019 298 of 2018 2. MAC No.1821 of 2019 267 of 2018 3. MAC No.2011 of 2019 466 of 2018 4. MAC No.2012 of 2019 300 of 2018 5. MAC No.2016 of 2019 299 of 2018 6. MAC No.2157 of 2019 266 of 2018 7. MAC No.2190 of 2019 267 of 2018 3. All these claim cases were decided by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur to the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur in claim case Nos. 298 of 2018, 267 of 2018, 466 of 2018, 300 of 2018, 299 of 2018 & 266 of 2018 vide judgments and awards dated 20.6.2019. 7 4. In MAC No.2010 of 2019: Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/ injured would submit that in the above-stated accident, the claimant – Lala @ Lalu Ram Sahu sustained injuries over neck including fracture of right leg and he remained hospitalized fro a period of 25 days from 28.1.2018 to 21.2.2018. She would contend that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount on conventional heads and failed to grant compensation for loss of earning. She would pray to enhance the compensation. 5. On the other hand, Shri B.N. Nande, learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would contend that the treating doctor was not examined to prove seriousness of injuries. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, the claimant had sustained injuries over neck including fracture of right leg. Learned Tribunal honoured the medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs.24,924/-. Learned Tribunal further granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- for special diet, Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- for transportation. The claimant remained hospitalized for 25 days but the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of earning. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2018 was Rs.8,580/- and the claimant is entitled to get said sum. The learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for attendant. As the claimant remained hospitalized for one month, Rs.10,000/- would be adequate figure. 8 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration in MAC No.2010 of 2019 and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Special Diet Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 2. Pain and Suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 2. Transportation Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 3. Medical Expenses Rs.24,924/- Rs.24,924/- 4. Loss of Income Rs.6,000/- Rs.8,580/- 5. Attendant --- Rs.10,000/- TOTAL Rs. 90,924/- Rs. 1,03,504/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.90,924/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,03,504/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.90,924/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.12,580/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. In MAC No.2011 of 2019: Ms. Prachi Singh, would submit that the claimant – Sandeep Sahu sustained injuries in aforesaid accident including fracture of right leg, left hand and shoulder bone. She would contend that a disability certificate was issued by Dr. A.A. Saify (AW-2) 9 vide Ex.P/32 to the extent of 10% but the learned Tribunal failed to consider the said document. She would submit that the claimant remained hospitalized from 27.1.2018 to 8.2.2018 and the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation for loss of earning. It is contended that on other heads the learned Tribunal has granted meagre amount. She would pray to enhance the compensation. 11. On the other hand, Shri B.N. Nande, counsel appearing for Insurance Company would submit that the disability certificate Ex. P/32 has not been issued by the medical board. He would submit that it was issued by a private doctor, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly ignored it. He would contend that on other heads learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 13. The claimant – Sandeep Sahu sustained injuries including fracture of right leg, left hand and shoulder and remained hospitalized for 12 days. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,62,096/-. The learned Tribunal has rightly ignored the disability certificate as it was not issued by the Competent Medical Board rather it was issued by a private doctor. Learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,47,096/- against the medical expenditure incurred in the treatment. Learned Tribunal further granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for special diet, Rs.5,000/- for transportation. Learned Tribunal calculated a total sum of Rs.1,62,096/- whereas, the total compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is Rs.1,72,096/-, indicating a miscalculation. The claimant remained hospitalized for 12 days and had suffered fractures, 10 therefore, the learned Tribunal should have granted compensation for loss of earning. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2018 was Rs.8,580/- and the claimant would be entitled for loss of earning. The compensation enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, for special diet Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and for attendant Rs.10,000/-. 14. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration in MAC No.2011 of 2019 and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Special Diet Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/- 2. Pain and Suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/- 3. Conveyance Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 4. Attendant --- Rs.10,000/- 5. Medical Expenses Rs.1,47,096/- Rs.1,47,096/- 6. Loss of Income --- Rs.8,580/- TOTAL Rs. 1,62,096/- (miscalculation) Rs. 2,20,676/- 15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,62,096/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,20,676/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.1,62,096/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.58,580/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from 11 the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In MAC No.2012 of 2019: Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ injured would submit that Rakesh Sahu also sustained injuries in the said accident including fracture of left hand and femur bone of the right leg. She would contend that the claimant remained hospitalized from 28.1.2018 to 7.2.2018. She would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,39,257/-. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,14,257/- for medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for special diet and Rs.5,000/- for transportation. 17. On the other hand, Shri B.N. Nande, learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 19. Admittedly, the claimant had sustained injuries over left hand and femur bone of the right leg. Learned Tribunal honoured the medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs.1,14,257/-. Learned Tribunal further granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- for special diet, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- for transportation. The claimant remained hospitalized for 25 days but the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of earning. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2018 was Rs.8,580/- and the claimant is entitled to get the 12 said sum. The learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for attendant. As the claimant remained hospitalized for one month, Rs.10,000/- would be adequate figure for attendant. The learned Tribunal has granted a meagre amount towards special diet, pain and suffering and transportation. Thus, the compensation on these heads require reconsideration. 20. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Special Diet Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/- 2. Pain and Suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/- 3. Transportation Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/- 4. Attendant --- Rs.10,000/- 5. Medical Expenses Rs.1,14,257/- Rs.1,14,257/- 6. Loss of Income --- Rs.8,580/- TOTAL Rs. 1,39,257/- Rs. 1,92,837/- 21. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,39,257/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,92,837/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.1,39,257/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.53,580/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from 13 the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 22. In MAC No.2016 of 2019: Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ injured would submit that Jagdish Sahu sustained injuries in the accident, including a fracture of the left hand, fingers of the left leg and shoulder. She would contend that the claimant remained hospitalized from 27.1.2018 to 1.2.2018 and the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,44,305/-. She would submit that the learned Tribunal honoured the medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs.1,31,805/- and further granted compensation of Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- for special diet and Rs.2,500/- for transportation. She would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted compensation at lower side and failed to grant compensation for loss of earning and attendant charges. 23. Shri B.N. Nande, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 24. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 25. Admittedly, the claimant had sustained injuries including a fracture of the left hand, fingers of the left leg and shoulder. Learned Tribunal honoured the medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs.1,31,805/-. Learned Tribunal further granted compensation of Rs.5,000/- for special diet, Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.2,500/- for transportation. The claimant remained hospitalized for 6 days but the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss 14 of earning. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2018 was Rs.8,580/- and the claimant is entitled to get the said sum. The learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for attendant. As the claimant remained hospitalized for six days, Rs.10,000/- would be adequate figure for attendant. The learned Tribunal has granted a meagre amount towards special diet, pain and suffering and transportation. Thus, the compensation on these heads require reconsideration. 26. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Medical Expenses Rs.1,31,805/- Rs.1,31,805/- 2. Special Diet Rs.5,000/- Rs.25,000/- 3. Pain and Suffering Rs.5,000/- Rs.25,000/- 4. Transportation Rs.2,500/- Rs.5,000/- 5. Loss of earning --- Rs.8,580/- 6. Attendant --- Rs.10,000/- TOTAL Rs. 1,44,305/- Rs. 2,05,385/- 27. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,44,305/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,05,385/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.1,44,305/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.61,080/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 15 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 28. In MAC No.2157 of 2019 : Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that in the said accident Manoj Kumar Sahu lost his life and a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by his wife, daughter and parents. They pleaded that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 30 years and earning Rs.23,183/- per month as he was a salaried person. She would submit that the learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased between 31 to 35 years and applied multiplier of 16. She would submit that although the number of dependents are four, the learned Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th for personal and living expenses of the deceased but the learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd, which requires reconsideration. She would submit that as the deceased was a salaried person, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have granted 50% of income towards future prospects. She would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted a fixed sum of Rs.70,000/- for funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium whereas, the learned Tribunal should have granted Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants for loss of consortium. She would submit that the compensation requires reconsideration. 16 29. Shri B.N. Nande, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 30. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 31. The deceased was an Assistant Teacher and the learned Tribunal has rightly considered his salary Rs.23,831/- per month as per the salary slip. The learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd for personal and living expenses of the deceased whereas, number of the dependents are four, therefore, the proper deduction should have been 1/4th. Learned Tribunal has granted 40% compensation for future prospects whereas, the deceased being a salaried person this figure should be 50%. On other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal should have granted compensation according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 32. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration in MAC No.2010 of 2019 and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 23,831 x 12 = Rs. 2,85,972/- Rs. 23,831 x 12 = Rs. 2,85,972/- 2. Future Prospects 40% (Rs.1,14,388/-) (2,85,972 + 1,14,388 = 4,00,360/- 50% (Rs.1,42,986/-) (2,85,972 + 1,42,986 = 4,28,958/- 17 3. Deduction (-) 1/3rd Rs. 1,33,453/- = Rs. (4,00,360 – 1,33,453 = Rs.2,66,907/-) (-) 1/4 Rs. 1,07,240/- = Rs. (4,28,958 – 1,07,240 = Rs.3,21,718/-) 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs. 42,70512/- (2,66,907 x 16) (x) 16 = Rs. 51,47,488/- (3,21,718 x 16) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium for appellants No.1 to 4 Rs. 48,000 x 4 = 1,92,000/- TOTAL Rs.43,40,512/- Rs. 53,75,488/- 33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.43,40,512/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.53,75,488/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.43,40,512/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.10,34,976/-. The Insurance Company 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 @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 34. In MAC No.2190 of 2019: Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the deceased – Rupesh Kumar Sahu, was an income-tax payee. She would contend that for the assessment year 2017-18, his average income according to the ITR was Rs.3,11,103/- and the learned Tribunal should admitted that figure 18 while computing the income of the deceased. She would fairly submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier and deductions. She would also contend that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in granting a fixed compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. She would pray to enhance the compensation. 35. In MAC No.1821 of 2019: The Insurance Company has challenged the quantum part. Shri B.N. Nande, would submit that the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law while taking into consideration average of ITRs of 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. He would contend that the return submitted after the date of accident should have been excluded by the learned Tribunal while computing the average income of the deceased. He would contend that the learned Tribunal should taken into consideration the ITR for financial year 2014-15 while assessing the average income of the deceased. He would pray to modify the award. He would submit that on other heads, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. 36. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 37. The claimants filed ITRs for the years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 of deceased – Rupesh Kumar Sahu. In the year 2015-16, the average income of the deceased was Rs.2,31,400/- and in the year 2016-17, it was Rs.2,69,450/- and in the year 2017-18, it was Rs.3,11,103/-. The average income of three years was Rs.2,70,651/- and the said figure has been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased. 19 38. The contention made by Shri B.N. Nande, counsel appearing for Insurance Company has been considered. In the year 2015-16, the income of the deceased was Rs.2,31,400/- and there was a gradual increase to Rs.2,69,450/- in 2016-17, and in the year 2017-18, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.3,11,103/-. Thus, it is not a case where after death of the victim, an exorbitant ITR was filed by the claimants seeking higher compensation. Therefore, the argument advanced by Shri B.N. Nande is hereby rejected. Learned Tribunal has considered the average income of the ITRs for the last three years, which is proper. 39. The contention made by Ms. Prachi Singh, the income of only one year cannot be taken into consideration to assess the income of the deceased and the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the average income of last three years. 40. Learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Thus, the compensation requires reconsideration: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Yearly Rs. 2,70,651/- Rs. 2,70,651/- 2. Future Prospects 40% (Rs.1,08,260/-) 40% (Rs.1,08,260/-) 20 (2,70,651 + 1,08,260 = 3,78,911/- (2,70,651 + 1,08,260 = 3,78,911/- 3. Deduction 1/4th (94,728/-) (3,78,911 – 94,728 = 2,84,183/- 1/4th (94,728/-) (3,78,911 – 94,728 = 2,84,183/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs. 45,46,928/- (2,84,183 x 16) (x) 16 = Rs. 45,46,928/- (2,84,183 x 16) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 48,000 x 5 = 2,40,000/- (wife, two children and parents) TOTAL Rs.46,16,928/- Rs. 48,22,928/- 41. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.46,16,928/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.48,22,928/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.46,16,928/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,06,000/-. The Insurance Company 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 @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 42. In the result, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal preferred by the claimants is partly allowed 21 and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi