1 CGHC010116412020 2026:CGHC:31566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 811 of 2020 1 - Smt. Sukham W/o Lt. Ramadhar Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Dangania, P.S- D.D. Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Umesh S/o Lt. Ramadhar Patel Aged About 27 Years R/o Dangania, P.S.- D.D. Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Saraswati D/o Lt. Ramadhar Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Dangania, P.S.- D.D. Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Virendra Kumar S/o Surendra Kumar Navhare, R/o E.W.S. -55, Padnabhpur, Durg, P.S. - City Kotwali Durg, Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Motor Cycle No. C.G.-07a-6945), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Surendra Kumar Navhare S/o Manohar Rao Navhare R/o E.W.S. 55, Padnabhpur, Durg, P.S.- City Kotwali Durg, Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh., (Owner Of Motor Cycle No. C.G.- 07a-6945), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 3 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Divisional Manager (Division No. 1), The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jail Road Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Motor Cycle No. C.G.-07a- 6945), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, 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 07/12/2018 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur of 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 41/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,66,800/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of Ramadhar Patel. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal has only granted Rs. 40,000/- under loss of consortium whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 40,000/- x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000/-, therefore, the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced. 3 3. 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. 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. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, it appears that the Claims Tribunal has only granted Rs. 40,000/- under loss of consortium whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 40,000/- x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000/-. 6. 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. 6,000/- x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 15% i.e. Rs. 10,800/- = Rs. 82,800/- (+) 15% i.e. Rs. 10,800/- = Rs. 82,800/- 2. Deduction (-) 1/3 i.e. Rs. 27,600/- = Rs. 55,200/- (-) 1/3 i.e. Rs. 27,600/- = Rs. 55,200/- 3. Multiplier (x) 9 = Rs. 4,96,800/- (x) 9 = Rs. 4,96,800/- 4 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. 40,000/- x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000/- Total Rs. 5,66,800/- Rs. 6,46,800/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,66,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 6,46,800/-. Hence, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 80,000/-. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days 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. 19/01/2016 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet