1 2026:CGHC:864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1528 of 2024 1. Smt. Heeravati Baghel W/o Late Gururam Baghel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Sandhkarmari, Mundigudapara, Police Station Karpawand, District Bastar, C.G. 2. Kumar Baghel S/o Late Gururam Baghel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sandhkarmari, Mundigudapara, Police Station Karpawand, District Bastar, C.G. 3. Nitlesh Kumar S/o Late Gururam Baghel Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Sandhkarmari, Mundigudapara, Police Station Karpawand, District Bastar, C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Motiram Baghel S/o Ramu Baghel Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Saanwara, Sadakpara, Police Station Karpawand, District Bastar, C.G. (Driver) 2. Tularam Kashyap S/o Lakhan Kashyap Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Suvachund Pujaripara, Police Station Karpawand, District Bastar, C.G. (Owner) 3. Branch Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch- Ground Floor, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Post- Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondents : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.01 .2026 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar place Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 129/2023 dated 15.04.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.07 16:37:33 +0530 2 tune of Rs. 13,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per anum on account of death of Gururam Baghel. 2. Mr. Punit Ruparel would submit that on 14.04.2023 when deceased Gururam Baghel was returning home from general store, rider of motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 17 KR 4410 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed him, resultantly, he sustained injuries and during course of treatment died. He would submit that widow and two children filed claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein, they pleaded that the deceased was a Mason, earing Rs. 18,000/- per month and his age was 45 years at the time of accident. They claimed a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/-. Mr. Ruparel would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 9,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would contend that the deceased was a skilled labourer and the learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix accordingly. He would contend that AW1/Smt. Heeravati Baghel has proved that the deceased was working as a Mason, earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not granted proper compensation for loss of consortium. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 3. Despite service of notice there is no representation on behalf of Insurance Company, whereas, liability has been fastened with it. 4. I have heard Mr. Ruparel at length and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of accident. As pleaded and deposed by the claimants, the deceased was a Mason. In the evidence, Smt. Heeravati (AW/1) has categorically deposed that her husband was a Mason. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the 3 deceased Rs. 9,000/- per month which is at lower side. In absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix. As the deceased was a Mason, the learned Tribunal should treated him skilled labourer. The minimum wages admissible to skilled labourer in the month of April, 2023 was 11,650/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal failed to grant proper compensation for loss of consortium to the children of the deceased. Thus, 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. 9,000 x12 = Rs. 1,08,000/- Rs. 11,650 x12 = Rs. 1,39,800/- 2. Future Prospect (25%) = Rs. 27,000/- (25%) = Rs. 34,950/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 Rs. 45,000/- Rs. 90,000/- (-) 1/3 Rs. 58,250/- Rs. 1,16,500/- 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = Rs. 12,60,000/- (x) 14 = Rs. 16,31,000 /- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 8. Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 2) Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 9. Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 3) Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL Rs. 13,70,000/- Rs. 17,81,000/- 6. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 13,70,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced 4 to Rs. 17,81,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 13,70,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,11,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 7.Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant