-1- 2026:CGHC:2769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 807 of 2021 1 - Bedkumar Sd/o Late Dayaram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Lamidih Post Sonasilli, Thana And Tahsil Pithaura, District Mahasmund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Pushpa D/o Late Dayaram Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Lamidih Post Sonasilli, Thana And Tahsil Pithaura, District Mahasmund Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vijay Kumar S/o Late Dayaram Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Lamidih Post Sonasilli, Thana And Tahsil Pithaura, District Mahasmund Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Ghanshyam S/o Meghva Sahu Aged About 38 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Sarora, Thana Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aashish Sharma S/o Ramdas Sharma Aged About 40 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, Vehicle Bolero No. C.G. 04 L.Q 8469 Of Owner, R/o L.I.G. 118, Sector 2 Near Pass Port Office Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kachehari Chowk Jel Road Raipur Districtraipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Velhicle Bolero No. C.G. 04/ L.Q. 8469) ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For respondent No.3/Insurance : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.01.2026 1) Heard. 2) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of -2- compensation assailing an award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No.94/2018 dated 06.09.2021 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,97,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Dayaram. 3) Mr. Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 60 years and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. He would further submit that on 09.12.2017 at about 10:30 a.m., Scooty of the deceased was dashed by offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.C.G.04/LQ/8469. He would contend that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month which is at lower side. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has not granted just and proper compensation on conventional heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Singroul. He would submit that the claimants could not prove the fact that they were dependents on the income of the deceased. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would contend that the learned Tribunal fastened liability with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award first and recover it from the -3- owner and driver of the offending vehicle. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Admittedly, the claimants were major at the time of filing of claim petition. The claimants pleaded that they were dependent on the income of the deceased. 7) Dev Kumar Jangde (AW1) on affidavit stated that the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased. In cross-examination, the Insurance Company failed to put any question with regard to dependency. The Insurance Company further failed to examine any witness to establish the fact that the claimants were major and they were not dependent on the income of the deceased. 8) Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- per month which is at lower side. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of December, 2017 was Rs.7,930/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of deceased. Further, learned Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.30,000/- for filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for loss of filial consortium appears to be at lower side. -4- 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.3000x12= Rs.36,000/- Rs.7,930x12=Rs.95,160/- 2. Future Prospect 10% of 36,000 = 3,600 36,000 + 3,600= 39,600 10% of 95,160 =9,516 95,160 + 9,516= 1,04,676/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 =Rs.13,200 39,600 – 13,200 = 26,400 (-) 1/3= 34,892/- 1,04,676 – 34,892 = 69,784 4. Multiplier (x) 9 = Rs. 2,37,600 (x) 9 =Rs. 6,28,056 5. Other heads- loss of Consortium (for appellants No.1 to 3 Rs.10,000 x 3 = Rs.30,000 Rs.44,000 x 3= Rs.1,32,000 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 8. Total Rs. 2,97,600/- Rs. 7,90,056/- 10) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,97,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.7,90,056/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,97,600/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,92,456/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of award shall -5- remain intact. 11) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha