1 2026:CGHC:18119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 876 of 2020 1 - Smt. Sangita Bai W/o Lt. Narendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Gokulnagar, Ward No. 18, P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Rani D/o Lt. Narendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sangita Bai Aged About 30 Years, W/o Lt. Narendra Kumar Sahu, R/o Gokulnagar, Ward No. 18, P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh..............Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Hariram S/o Lt. Shivraj Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Gokulnagar, Ward No. 18, P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh..............Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Punni Bai W/o Hariram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Gokulnagar, Ward No. 18, P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh................Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Tularam @ Bhola S/o Lateldas Satnami, R/o Tihupara, Simga, P.O. And P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh.................(Driver Of Tractor Bearing No. C.G.-04-D-7897)...............Non-Applicant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.04.22 19:16:47 +0530 2 2 - Banshilal S/o Bhauram Sonkar, R/o. Sonkarpara, Simga, P.O. And P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tractor Bearing No. C.G.-04-D-7897)...........Non-Applicant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Future Generaly India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through In Charge Officer Future Generaly India Insurance Co. Ltd. Maruti Business Park, Near Dhuppad Patrol Pump, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Tractor Bearing No. C.G.-04-D-7897)...........Non-Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Amit Prasad, S/o V. Prasad, R/o Shanti Residency, H.No.- 304, Pachbedi Naka, Raipur, P.S. Tikrapara, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Car Bearing No. C.G.-10-F-9291)...........Non- Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Divya Todekar W/o Amit Prasad, R/o Shanti Residency, H.No.- 304, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, P.S. Tikrapara, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Car Bearing No. C.G.-10-F-9291)..........Non- Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Tata A.I.G. General India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through In Charge Officer Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Lal Ganga Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Car Bearing No. C.G.-10-F-9291)..........Non-Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 & 6 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. 3 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 21/04/2026 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 27.04.2019 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.102/2015 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.9,26,800/- has been fastened on the respondents. In the present Appeal, the appellants/claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, 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.4,000/- inasmuch as the deceased was working as driver and used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month, whereas, as per minimum wages at the relevant point of time, his monthly income should have been assessed at Rs.5,163/-. As such, the impugned award may be modified accordingly. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Saurabh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 & 6 would support the impugned award. 4 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.4,000/- 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.5,163/-. 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.5,163/-. As such, the claimants will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this Court:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Loss of Income Rs.4,000/- x 12 = Rs.48,000/- Rs.5,163/- x 12 = Rs.61,956/- 2. Future prospects (+) 40% i.e. 19,200/- = Rs.67,200/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs.24,782/- = Rs.86,738/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4th i.e. Rs.16,800/- = Rs.50,400/- (-) ¼ i.e. Rs.21,685/- = Rs.65,053/- 4. Multiplier 17, = Rs.8,56,800/- Rs.65,053/- x 17 = Rs.11,05,901/- 5. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 5 6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/- Total Rs.9,26,800/- Rs.12,95,901/- 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹9,26,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹12,95,901/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹9,26,800/-, the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹3,69,101/-. It is made clear that 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation shall be borne by respondent No.3/Insurance Company and the remaining 50% amount shall be borne by respondent No.6/Insurance Company. Let the enhanced amount of compensation be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% 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