1 2026:CGHC:4860 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1780 of 2023 1 - Smt. Sushila Patel W/o. Surendra Patel, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 24, Village Limtara, Police Station Kumgaru, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisarh. At Present Village Tedesara, Police Station Somni, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anand Patel S/o Late Surendra Patel, Aged About 5 Years Appellant No. 02 Through The Legal Guardian Smt. Sushila Patel W/o Guardian Smt. Sushila Patel W/o . Surendra Patel, R/o Ward No. 24, Village Limtara, Police Station Kumgaru, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisarh. At Present Village Tedesara, Police Station Somni, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Mohammad Farukh Siddiqui S/o Jahid Ali Aged About 38 Years R/o Banjari Mata Ward No. 05 Geeta Nagar, Bhanpuri, Birgaon, Police Station Birgaon Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2 - Manish Das Manikpuri S/o Manohar Das Manikpuri, Aged About 28 Years R/o. Ward No. 05, Near Bhavna Kirana Store Bhanpuri, Police Station Khamtarai, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Nea Karnataka Bank, Station Road Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company) 4 - Sundar Patel S/o Late Mahraji Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 24, Village Limtara, Police Station Station Kumhari, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Kaushilya Patel W/o. Sundar Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 24, Village Limtara, Police Station Kumhari, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Claimants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For respondents No.4 &5 : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Patel, Adv. For other respondents : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.01 .2026 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of 2 compensation assailing the judgment and award passed by the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 97/2021 dated 20.06.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,23,400/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death of Surendra Patel in motor accident. 2. Mr. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that on 02.12.2020 at about 3:18 hours, the deceased Surendra Patel along with his younger brother Tejas were going Village Changorabhata Raipur in TATA vehicle bearing registration No.C.G./07/CA/5450 and when vehicle reached near Rampur Square Kumhari, the driver of the pick-up bearing registration No.C.G.04/MS/9847 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the vehicle resultantly, Surendra Patel sustained injuries and succumbed to death during course of treatment. Mr. Dhurandhar would contend that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased Rs.9,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would contend that the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of December, 2021 was Rs.9,480/- and the Tribunal should have taken that figure. He would fairly submit that on conventional heads, learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Mr. Dhurandhar would submit that a Claim Case No.97 of 2021 was filed by widow and minor child and parents of the deceased were impleaded as respondents No.4 & 5. He would contend that at the time of accident, age of the father of the deceased was 60 years and that of mother was 55 years. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal divided the amount of compensation in equal part between all the dependents which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would submit that looking to the age of the parents, learned Tribunal should have 3 divided the compensation in ratio of 70:30. He would pray to allow this appeal. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for respondent/Insurance Company would oppose. He would submit that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased and therefore, learned Tribunal rightly assessed it Rs.9,000/- per month. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate would submit that the learned Tribunal rightly divided the amount of compensation between the dependents. She would further submit that the parents of the deceased were also dependent on the income of the deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly awarded them 50% of compensation. She would lastly submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. With regard to income part, learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix particularly when the claimants failed to prove the income part. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labrouer in the month of December, 2020 was Rs.9,480/- and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken that figure while computing the income of the deceased. The rest part of the award has not been disputed by the claimants. 7. With regard to apportionment of compensation, it is not in dispute that at the time of death of Surendra Patel, age of the claimant No.1 (widow) was 30 years and minor child was aged about 5 years, whereas, age of father of deceased was 60 years and age of mother of deceased was 55 years. As the father of the deceased was alive at the time of accident, therefore, 4 it cannot be presumed that mother was financially dependent on the income of deceased, whereas, the widow and minor child were totally dependent on the income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal committed an error of law while making apportionment of compensation between widow and minor child and parents in ratio of 50:50. In my opinion, learned Tribunal should have apportioned at the ratio of 70:30 between the widow, child and parents of the deceased. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of D. Shanmukha Sundaramma Vs. D. Suneetha and others, reported in 2009(3) SCC 787, granted 25% of compensation to the parents of the deceased. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sundaramma (supra), the widow and minor child shall be entitled to receive 70% of total sum of compensation, whereas, the parents of deceased shall be entitled to receive remaining 30% with interest component. 10. With regard to enhancement, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited herein-below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 9000 x12 = Rs. 1,08,000/- Rs. 9,480x12 = Rs. 1,13,760/- 2. Deduction (-) 1/4 of Rs.1,08,000 = 27,000/- 1,08,000– 27,000 =81,000 (-) 1/4 of Rs.1,13,760 = 28,440/- 1,13,760 – 28,440 =85,320 3. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs. 12,96,000 (x) 16 =Rs.13,65,120 4. Future Prospect (40%) of 12,96,000 = 5,18,400 12,96,000 + 5,18,400 = 18,14,400 (40%) of 13,65,120=5,46,048/- = 13,65,120 + 5,,46,048 =Rs.19,11,168 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500 5 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of consortium for claimants) Rs.44,000 x 4 = 1,76,000 Rs.44,000 x 4 = 1,76,000 TOTAL Rs. 20,23,400/- Rs. 21,20,168/- 11. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 20,23,400/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.21,20,168/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 20,23,400/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.96,768/-. 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. Further, the amount awarded shall be apportioned between the widow, minor child and parents of the deceased in ratio of 70:30 respectively. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha