1 CGHC010141692020 2026:CGHC:31565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 883 of 2020 1 - Smt. Sukhwantin Dhritlahare (Satnami) W/o Lt. Dallu Satnami Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill.- Kapsada, P.O.- Dharsiva, Distt.- Raipur, (C.G.)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pinki Tandan D/o Lt. Dallu Satnami Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill.- Kapsada, P.O.- Dharsiva, Distt.- Raipur, (C.G.)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Malgeram Nishad @ Ranjeet S/o Agnuram Nishad R/o Ward No.- 2, Dharsiva, P.S.- Dharsiva, Distt.- Raipur, (C.G.)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Gyanti R. Giri W/o R. Giri R/o Sainagar, Ushlapur, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) (Owner Of Truck No. M.H.-04-Cg-3005), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Inurance Co. Ltd. Through- Divisional Manager Add.- Divisional Office No.1, Fafadih Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Tah. And Distt.- Raipur, (C.G.). (Insurer Of Truck No. M.H.-04-Cg-3005), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.07.24 10:26:00 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : None though served For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate SB – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 23/07/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 04/05/2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 141/2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,77,200/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of Chandrashekhar Satnami. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would make a two- fold submission. Firstly, he would submit that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-, however, it should be Rs. 6,230/- as per the minimum wage notification prevelant at the time of the accident and furthermore, 1/3rd deduction ought to have been made instead of ½ and Rs. 80,000/- ought to have been granted for loss of consortium, therefore, the amount of compensation may suitably be 3 enhanced. Secondly, he would submit that the Insurance Company has been exonerated by the Claims Tribunal holding that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle, however, in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others1, the Insurance Company may be directed to firstly pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter, recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 3. None appeared for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court and the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from liability of payment of compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, it appears that the Claims Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- which should be Rs. 6,230/- as per the minimum wage notification and 1 AIR 2018 SC 2262 4 1/3rd deduction ought to have been made instead of ½ and Rs. 80,000/- ought to have been granted for loss of consortium. 7. Thus, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 6,000/- x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 6,230/- x 12 = Rs. 74,760/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 28,800/- = Rs. 1,00,800/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 29,904/- = Rs. 1,04,664/- 2. Deduction (-) 1/2 = Rs. 50,400/- (-) 1/3 = Rs. 69,776/- 3. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs. 9,07,200/- (x) 18 = Rs. 12,55,968/- 4. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 80,000/- Total Rs. 9,77,200/- Rs. 13,65,968/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,65,968/-. Hence, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,45,600/- which shall be paid within a 5 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. 23/02/2018 till its realization. In view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh (supra), it is hereby directed that the respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) shall firstly pay the compensation amount to the claimants and thereafter, recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 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 herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet