1 2026:CGHC:4617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A(C) No.1268 of 2025 1 - Bheesam Ram Kumbhakar S/o Shri Adhar Singh Kumbhkar Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Kumharpara, Daundi, District Balod (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Meena Bai, W/o Shri Bheesam Ram Kumbhkar, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No.02, Kumharpara, Daundi, District Balod (C.G.) 3 - Ku. Anjali, D/o Shri Bheesam Ram Kumbhkar, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Kumharpara, Daundi, District Balod (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Laxman Warde S/o Shri Awadhram Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 22, Behind Jain Mandir, Dalli Rajahara, Tahsil Daundi District Balod (C.G.) (Driver & Owner of Motor Cycle CG-24-E- 3966) SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.01.29 17:13:55 +0530 2 2 - United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office - Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Near Gurudwara, In Front Of Karnataka Bank, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.)(Insurer of Motor Cycle CG-24-E-3966) ... Respondents For Appellants :Smt Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.3. :Shri GVK Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 28.01.2026 1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, assailing the award dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.C. No.148/2024, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,59,482/- along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of the death of Ajay Kumar in a motor accident. 2. Smt. Patel, learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that on 07.11.2023 at about 2:00 p.m., the motorcycle of deceased Ajay Kumar was dashed by another motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-24-E-3966 as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death on the same day. She further submits 3 that the parents and younger sister of the deceased filed a claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading that the deceased was aged about 24 years and earning Rs.21,000/- per month. She argues that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and the Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix while computing the income part. She further submits that the Tribunal erred in not granting compensation towards loss of consortium to the younger sister of the deceased and therefore, prays for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Per contra, Shri Rao, learned counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company opposes the aforesaid submissions and contends that the Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He submits that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading any cogent evidence. He further submits that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, only parental consortium and filial consortium are permissible and there is no mandate for grant of loss of consortium to siblings and lastly submits that the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4 4. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties, perused the impugned award as also gone through the entire record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the age of the deceased Ajay Kumar was 24 years at the time of the accident. The Claimants failed to adduce any documentary or reliable oral evidence to establish the monthly income of the deceased. In such circumstances, the Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is certainly on lower side. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that in absence of any evidence, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labourer prevailing at the time of accident. For the month of November, 2023, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer were Rs.10,100/- per month, which should have been taken into account by the Tribunal for computation of income part of the deceased. 6. With regard to the claim for loss of consortium to the younger sister, the Claimants failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish that she was dependent upon the income of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the father of the deceased is alive. In view of the settled law, the Tribunal has rightly confined the grant of consortium to the parents of the deceased only and no interference is called for on this count. 5 7. Since the Tribunal has failed to compute the income part of the deceased properly, therefore, the compensation awarded requires reconsideration, which is being revisited hereunder:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 72,000/- (@ Rs.6,000 p.m.) Rs. 1,21,200/- (@ Rs.10,100 p.m.) 2. Annual Income after applying Multiplier Rs. 12,96,000/- (@18) Rs. 21,81,600/- (@18) 3. Annual Income after adding Future Prospects Rs. 18,14,400/- (@40%) Rs. 30,54,240/- (@40%) 4. Annual income after deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 9,07,200/- (@1/2, bachelor) Rs. 15,27,120/- (@1/2, bachelor) 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. 80,000/- (parents only) TOTAL Rs. 15,59,482/- Rs. 16,37,120/- 8. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.15,59,482/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.16,37,120/-. Hence, the Appellants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.77,638/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact. 6 9. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Priya