1 2026:CGHC:26911 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 248 of 2020 1 - Smt. Radha Bai W/o Late Madansundar Yadav Aged About 37 Years Through Rishkesh Yadav, Roshan Colony, Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Vijay Sao S/o Reva Sao Aged About 46 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner / Driver, R/o Village Navadih, Ward No. 4, Police Station Markacho, Kodarma (Jharkhand)., District : Kodarma *, Jharkhand 2 - Branch Manager Maigma General, Insurance Company Limited, Maigma House 24 Park Street Kolkata, (West Bengal) 700016., District : Kolkata, West Bengal 3 - Laxmi W/o Late Madansundar Yadav R/o House No. 248, Village Godikala, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Minor Dipak Kumar Yadav S/o Late Madan Sundar Yadav Aged About 17 Years R/o Village Post Kusmura, Police Station Kotraroad, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Minor Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Madansundar Yadav Aged About 16 Years Through Legal Grandfather Jageshwar Prasad Yadav, 2 S/o Gopal Prasad Yadav, R/o Village Post Kusmura, Police Station Kotraroad, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Hemowati Yadav W/o Jageshwar Prasad Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Post Kusmura, Police Station Kotraroad, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Jageshwar Prasad Yadav S/o Gopal Prasad Yadav Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Post Kusmura, Police Station Kotraroad, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 to 6 : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 01.07.2026 1. The appellant herein, being the second wife of deceased Madansundar Yadav, has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 07/12/2019 passed by learned VIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in MACT No. 46/2018 claiming enhancement of compensation as well as 25% of share in the total compensation. 3 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant, being the second wife of the deceased and being his dependent, would be entitled for 25% of the total compensation in light of the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Damyanti Keshari and Others1 on 04/05/2026. He would further submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in taking notional income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month, however, as per the minimum wage notification prevailing on the date of the accident, it would be Rs. 7,930/- per month, as such, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award and submit that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 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. A careful perusal of the record would show that after the year 2014, the appellant and the deceased were residing together as husband and wife. The evidence of Radha Bai (NA.W.-1) 1 2026:CGHC:20733 4 and Tikeshwar Yadav (NA.W.-2) establishes that the deceased and the appellant constituted one household and the deceased was maintaining her. Appellant has also filed various documents like Aadhar Car, Voter ID Card, Ration Card and other public documents which consistently describe the appellant as wife of the deceased Madansundar Yadav. As such, the Claims Tribunal has erred in denying the appellant any share in the compensation. In view of the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Damyanti Keshari (supra), the appellant being the second wife of the appellant, would be entitled to 25% of the total compensation. 6. So far as the question of enhancement of compensation is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-, however, as per the minimum wage notification, it would be Rs. 7,930/- and moreover, the Claims Tribunal has only granted Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 40,000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,60,000/-. Thus, this Court is computing the compensation as stated below :- Heads Tribunal This Court Income Rs. 6,000/- x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 7,930/- x 12 = Rs. 95,160/- Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 28,800/- = (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 38,064/- = 5 Rs. 1,00,800/- Rs. 1,33,224/- Deduction (-) ¼ = Rs. 75,600/- (-) ¼ = Rs. 1,33,224/- Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs. 11,34,000/- (x) 15 = Rs. 14,98,770/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,60,000/- Total Rs. 12,04,000/- Rs. 16,88,770/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 12,04,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 16,88,770/-, out of which, the appellant herein would be entitled to get 25% share and the remaining 75% of the share would be payable to the other claimants. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 13/04/2018 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet