1 2026:CGHC:4632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 763 of 2021 1. Jitendra Ram S/o Jayram Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bhitghara, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Keitko Bai W/o Jitendra Ram, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Bhitghara, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chhattis Ram S/o Jitendra Ram, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bhitghara, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Laxmi Bai W/o Late Chhatrapal, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhitghara, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5. Ragini D/o Late Chhatrapal, Aged About 4 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Laxmi Bai, R/o Village Bhitghara, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 6. Raunak Bai D/o Late Chhatrapal, Aged About 2 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Laxmi Bai, R/o Village Bhitghara, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Gaurav Kumar S/o Bandhu Ram, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Darripara, Amagasi P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Jitendra S/o Binod Kumar, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sedam, Police Station And Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.01.28 16:47:57 +0530 2 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office- Rahul Complex, Beside Bajaj Show Room, Above Axis Bank, Third Floor, Jagatpur, Dhimrapur Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28.1.2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur in Claim Case No. 10/2021 dated 15.7.2021 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 14,70,800/- with interest @ 6% on account of death of Chatrapal. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 21.1.2020 at about 9:00- 10:00 pm, Chatrapal was chatting with his friends beside the road when the offending vehicle – Truck bearing registration No. CG- 15-DM-3156 being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed Chatrapal. In the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and died during course of treatment on 24.1.2020. Claimants, who are the widow, minor children, parents and brother of deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,00,000/-. They pleaded that the deceased was aged 22 years and was earning Rs. 500/- per day working as mason. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award 3 impugned was passed. 3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month which is not in consonance with the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. He further submits that learned Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards loss of consortium overlooking the number of dependents. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He submits that claimants failed to lead cogent evidence to prove the income of deceased and brother of deceased who is a major would not come within the definition of ‘dependents’, thus he is not entitled to receive separate compensation towards loss of consortium. He further submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and same does not warrant any interference. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Admittedly, claimants have not placed on record any document to demonstrate the monthly income of deceased. However, learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- whereas according to the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, minimum wages payable to an 4 unskilled laborer in January, 2020 was Rs. 8,600/- per month and learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. Furthermore, learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 80,000/- towards loss of consortium overlooking the fact that widow, parents and minor children of deceased are entitled to receive separate compensation towards loss of consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.1 7) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is re- computing the compensation as below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 72,000/- (@Rs. 6,000 pm) Rs. 1,03,200/- (@Rs. 8,600 pm) 2. Annual Income after applying Multiplier Rs. 12,96,000/- (@18) Rs. 18,57,600/- (@18) 3. Annual Income adding Future Prospect Rs. 18,14,400/- (@40%) Rs. 26,00,640 /- (@40%) 4. Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 13,60,800/- (@1/4) Rs. 19,50,480/- (@1/4) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 2,00,000 (wife, parents and two minor children) TOTAL Rs. 14,70,800/- Rs. 21,80,480/- 1. (2008) 18 SCC 130 5 8) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 14,70,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 21,80,480/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 7,09,680/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact. 9) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a