1 2026:CGHC:17817 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 754 of 2020 1 - Rohni Chauhan W/o Late Devprasad Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Chauhan Mohalla, Ps Tamnar District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Torva P.S. Torva Tehsil And District Bilaspur 2 - Pritam Chauhan S/o Late Devprasad Age 6 Month, Through His Natural Guardian Rohni Chauhan W/o Late Devprasad Age 24 Years. R/o Village Chauhan Mohalla, Ps Tamnar District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Torva P.S. Torva Tehsil And District Bilaspur 3 - Kanhaiya Chauhan S/o Budhram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Chauhan Mohalla, Ps Tamnar District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Torva P.S. Torva Tehsil And District Bilaspur 4 - Padmavati Chauhan W/o Kanhaiya Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chauhan Mohalla, Ps Tamnar District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Torva P.S. Torva Tehsil And District Bilaspur ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Foolsai Ram S/o Ram Vrikshram Rotiya Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Challei, Tangar Toli Post Portenga Ps Lodaram, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2 - Proprietor Ghanshyam Dalmiya Milenium Supplier Private Ltd, R/o KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.04.21 19:49:38 +0530 2 Gopalpur, Ps Himgeer, District Sundargarh (Orissa) (Owner) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through It's Divisional Manager, Branch Office- 2nd Floor Rama Trade Centre Infront Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Road, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Miss Jasleen Gulati appears on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Miss Pooja Yadav, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 20/04/2026 1. The appellants/claimants have preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 24.12.2019 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.350/2019 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.18,33,588/- has been fastened on the Insurance Company. In the present Appeal, the appellants /claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. Miss Jasleen Gulati, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,140/- inasmuch as the deceased was working as foreman and as per minimum wages at the relevant point 3 of time, his monthly income should have been assessed at Rs.9,570/-. As such, the impugned award may be modified accordingly. 3. On the other hand, Miss Pooja Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would support the impugned award and submits that the claimants have not produced any cogent evidence to prove income of the deceased. The deceased was working as foreman in the Gor Pelma Coal Mines, Raigarh and, therefore, he can be treated as semi-skilled labour. Hence as per minimum wages, income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.8,790/-. 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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,140/- per month, whereas as per the minimum wages at the relevant point of time, monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs.8,790/- being semi-skilled labour. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the minimum wages at the relevant point of time, it would be appropriate to enhance award amount by taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,790/-. As such, the claimants will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this Court:- 4 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Loss of Income Rs.8,140/- (unskilled) Rs.8,790/- x 12 = Rs.1,05,480/- 2. Future prospects 40% Rs.42,192/-, Rs.1,05,480/- + Rs.42,192/- = Rs.1,47,672/- 3. Deduction 1/4th Rs.1,47,672 x ¼ (deduction) = Rs.36,918/- Rs.1,47,672/- - Rs.36,918/- = Rs.1,10,754/- 4. Multiplier 17, as the deceased was aged about 28 years Rs.1,10,754/- x 17 = Rs.18,82,818/- 5. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 6. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 7. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,76,000/- (4 X 44,000) Rs.18,82,818/- + Rs.2,09,000/- = Rs.20,91,818/- 8. Loss of love & affection Rs.10,000/- 9. Pain & suffering Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.18,33,588/- Rs.20,91,818/- 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹18,33,588/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹20,91,818/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of 18,33,588/- ₹ , the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of 2,58,230/- ₹ . The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry 5 interest @ 6% 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. 7. With the aforesaid modifications, the Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve