1 CGHC010076882025 2026:CGHC:30222 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 547 of 2025 1 - Mohan Lal Sahu S/o Khamman Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 36, Sorid Ward Gouthan Para, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Claimants). 2 - Smt. Tamin Bai Sahu W/o Mohan Lal, aged about 38 Years R/o Ward No. 36, Sorid Ward Gouthan Para, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sandeep Kumar Sahu S/o Mohan Lal, aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 36, Sorid Ward Gouthan Para, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Suraj Masih S/o Surendra Masih Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 4, Ward No. 23, Thana Chowk Udiya Para, Dallirajhara, P.S. Dallirajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh (Driver of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G. 07 E 5551). 2 - Manish Kumar Jain S/o Bhagchand Jain Aged About 50 Years R/o Padamnabhpur Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh Travel Form Place- G.E. Road, Pulgaon Chowk, Gayatri Mandir, Mini Mata Chowk, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G. 07 E 5551). 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Managr/ Branch Office- Nagar Ghadi Chowk Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G. 07 E 5551) ... Respondents For the appellants : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate 2 For respondent no.1 : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate For respondent no.3 Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advbocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 16.07.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 82/2022 whereby a total compensation of Rs.14,43,800/- has been awarded for the death of deceased Shiva Sahu in the accident took place on 26.4.2022. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 26.04.2022 deceased along with his friend Mithlesh was coming towards Koregaon on Scooty. On the way when they reached High Way (NH-30) in front of Jagdish Mal’s house, respondent no.1 who was driving the offending Bus No. C.G. 07-E-5551 in rash and negligent way hit the Scooty, resultantly the deceased both Shivlal Sahu and Mithilesh sustained grievous injuries. Eye witnesses took them to Keshkal Hospital and after examination by the doctor, Shiva Sahu and Mithlesh Dhruv were declared dead. Appellant No.1 is father of deceased Shiva Sahu, appellant no.2 is mother and appellant no.3 is brother. Thus the appellants being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 51 lakhs on various heads. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by doing the 3 work of Plumber and Electrician, but the learned Claims Tribunal had taken the lesser income of deceased as Rs.9000/- per month. The amounts granted under the conventional heads are also meagre, thereby, just compensation has not been awarded. He prays that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the appellants have failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in taking the income of the deceased as per the rates applicable to a skilled labour and thus it has passed the just award which needs no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In absence of any evidence regarding income of deceased, it would be appropriate to take his monthly income to be Rs.9960/- treating him as unskilled labour as per the the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages applicable as on 26.04.2022 and to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. Since the deceased was found to be bachelor of 19 years old, following the case-law , the Tribunal has rightly added 40% future prospectus, deducted 50% towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 18 which cannot be said to be legally unsustainable. The Tribunal has awarded a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of consortium for the mother and father. Under Motor Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established that every individual dependent is entitled to a separate compensation for the loss of parental/filial consortium, which needs to be suitably enhanced. 7. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the 4 decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as below : Sl.No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Total loss of dependency 13,60,800/- Rs.9960. X 12 =1,19,520/- plus 40% Future Prospectus- i.e., 47,808/- = 1,67,328/- minus 1/2 deduction of personal expenses i.e., 83,664 x 18 multiplier = 15, 05,952 2. Loss of estate 16,500/- 16,500/- 3. Funeral expenses 16,500/- 16,500/- 4. Loss of consortium or loss of love and affection 50,000/- 44,000 x 3 dependents 1,32,000/- Total Rs. 14,43,800/- 16,70,952/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. Rs. 14,43,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 16,70,952/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.14,43,800/-, the appellants held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.2,27,152/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Appellant no.3 5 being brother is entitled to get only the consortium of Rs.44,000/-. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao