1 2026:CGHC:11808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 597 of 2019 1 - Anita Devi W/o Late Deva Jhora Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Podi, Post-Lodam, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ganesh S/o Late Pijharu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Podi, Post-Lodam, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Tata Motors Limited Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, District : Jamshedpur, Jharkhand 2 - Sandeep Mukarjee S/o Late Sanjeet Mukarjee Occupation Driver, Village Baridihah, Police Station Singhgodha, District East Singhbhumi (J. H.), District : Pashchimi Singhbhum, Jharkhand 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Local Branch Office Judev Complex, Ghamahriya Road, Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellants : Mr. Divyanand Patel holding brief of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : : None Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 12/03/2026 1. The appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Jashpur, District- Jashpur, C.G. in Claim Case No. 33/2016, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,84,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum on account of death of Deva Jhora. 2. Mr. Divyanand Patel, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that on 25.06.2015 deceased Deva Jhora, his wife and brother were going to Village Jumla in a tempo and when the vehicle crossed the village Jumla, the driver of the offending truck bearing registration no. JH 05 A 0401 by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the tempo. In the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. He would further submit that the deceased was working as a Mason and at the time of accident, his age was about 25 years and earning Rs. 9,000 per month. It is also submitted that claimant no. 1 is the wife of the deceased whereas claimant no. 2 is brother and they were 3 dependent on the income of the deceased. Mr. Patel would submit that learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 5000/- which is not in consonance with the Minimum Wages Matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at relevant time. He would further submit that the Minimum Wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of June, 2015 was Rs. 5787/-. It is also contended that on conventional heads, learned Tribunal has granted just compensation thus, he would pray for enhancement accordingly. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants and submit that learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation to the claimants. He would submit that claimant no 2 is a major brother of deceased and the learned Tribunal has rightly declined to treat him dependent on the income of the deceased. Mr. Agrawal would submit that claimant no. 1/widow of the deceased has performed marriage after death of Deva Jhora and thus she cannot be treated as dependent on the income of the deceased. It is further argued that the claimant no. 2, who is brother of the deceased is residing in Shimla where he works as a labourer, therefore he cannot be treated as dependent and thus the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 5. Admittedly, claimant no. 1 Smt. Anita Devi is wife of Late Deva Jhora. During lifetime of Deva Jhora, marriage between them was never dissolved. Thus, it can be held that Smt. Anita Devi was dependent on income of the deceased. The family members, who were dependent on earning of deceased prior to his death should be treated as dependent, as they suffer pecuniary loss as well as loss to the estate. During lifetime of Deva Jhora, Smt. Anita Devi remained dependent on the income of the deceased and if after death of Deva Jhora, she performed marriage, it cannot be held that she would not come within the definition of dependent of Late Deva Jhora. Therefore, contention made by Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal is hereby rejected. 6. The claimant no. 2 is brother of deceased, who himself admitted that he is staying in Shimla, where he is working as labourer, therefore, certainly he would not come within the definition of dependent and that was the reason the learned Tribunal deducted ½ of the established income of the deceased, while accessing income. 7. The insurance company by way of cross-objection has challenged the quantum part only on the ground that on account of marriage of Smt. Anita Devi, she is not entitled to receive compensation. As, it has already been held that she would come within the definition of dependent, therefore the cross-objection filed by the insurance company is hereby dismissed. 8. With regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has 5 assessed it as Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is certainly at lower side looking to the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of June, 2015 was Rs. 5787/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while assessing income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation on conventional heads including future prospects. Thus, the compensation requires reconsideration on income part. 9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is revisited as under:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal (A) Compensation awarded by this Court (B) Total income Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 97221.6/- Deduction (½) Rs. 42000/- Rs. 48610.8/- Multiplier 17 x Rs. 42000/- = Rs. 7,14,000/- 17 x Rs. 48610.8/- = Rs. 8,26,383.6/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Total A= Rs. 7,84,000/- B=Rs. 8,96,383.6/- Total compensation A - B = Rs. 1,12,383.6/- 10. In view of the above calculation, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 1,12,383.6/-. The respondents No.1, 2 & 3 are directed to pay the enhanced 6 compensation jointly and severally of Rs. 1,12,383.6/- with interest @ 9% per annum to the appellants/claimants within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Madhurima