1 CGHC010426072024 2026:CGHC:33037 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2356 of 2024 1 - Shankar Lal Diwakar S/o Prahlad Diwakar, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Rohda, Police Station-Saragaon, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 2 - Jeera Bai Diwakar W/o Shankar Lal Diwakar, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Rohda, Police Station-Saragaon, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 3 - Priti Kumari D/o Shankar Lal Diwakar, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village-Rohda, Police Station-Saragaon, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Rameshwar Kenwat S/o Shri Nanku Kenwat, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Kusmusi Banja, Police Station-Bhaiyathan, District-Surajpur (C.G.) ------(Driver of the Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-12 S-3246). 2 - Laxman Prasad Patel R/o Ramnath Patel, R/o Village-Komo, Police Station- Dabhra, District-Sakti (C.G.) ------(Owner of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-12 S- 3246). 3 - Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited, Office-Ward No. 25, Shri Guru Govind Singh Ward, 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, L.I.C. Building, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ------(Insurer of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-12 S-3246) ... Respondents For the appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For respondent no.3 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 30.07.2026 ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.07.31 18:06:16 +0530 2 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 09.07.2024 passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 39/2023 whereby a total compensation of Rs.14,73,800/- granted for the death of deceased. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Om Prakash Diwakar died in a motor accident took place on 25.01.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Appellants 1 & 2 are parents and appellant no.3 is sister of deceased. They being legal heirs o filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 50,60,000/- 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 a private job, but the learned Claims Tribunal had taken the lesser income of deceased as Rs.9000/- per month treating him as skilled labour. He submits that the loss of consortium must be granted to each dependent individually, rather than at a joint lump-sum. He further submits that the amounts granted for funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- and loss of estate Rs.16,500/- are also lesser. Therefore, the award be enhanced suitably. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, 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. The claimants have produced the certificates of academic and technical education vide Annexure P-17 & P-18. Ex.P-17 shows that the deceased had passed intermediate (10+2 examination) in the year 2017. Ex.P-16 shows that he had also completed ITI Course (Electrician Trade). Further Ex.P-18 shows that he had undergone training and acquired certain skills from the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the deceased to be a skilled worker. However, the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.9000/- is on lower side. In absence of any admissible evidence regarding 3 income of deceased and considering his educational and technical qualifications it would be appropriate to take his monthly income at Rs.11,390/- treating him as skilled worker as per the the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages. Since the age of deceased was found to be 22 years and there are 3 dependents, following the principles laid down by Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly added 40% future prospectus, deducted ½ (one-half) towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 18. Under the other conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted in all Rs. 1,13,000/- which seems to be lesser. 7. The tribunal has granted a joint lumpsum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium for the parents while claimant sister has been excluded from this head. 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. Further after every 3 years, the principle of 10% automatic enhancement will apply to conventional heads. Thus, each claimant is entitled to Rs.48,000/- separately and the total comes to Rs.1,44,000 for 3 claimants (48,000 x 3) under this head. Consequently, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the 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. 11,390/- X 12 = 1,36,680/- plus 40% Future Prospectus i.e., Rs.54,672 = 1,91,352/- minus 1/2 (one-half) deduction of personal expenses i.e., 95,676/- = 95,676 x 18 multiplier = 17,22,168/- 4 2. Loss of estate 16,500/- 18,000/- 3. Funeral expenses 16,500/- 18,000/- 4. Loss of consortium 80,000/- 48,000 x 3 dependents 1,44,000/- Total Rs. 14,73,800/- 19,02,168/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 14,73,800/- . awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 19,02,168/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 14,73,800/- the appellants held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.4,28,368/- The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated here-in-above. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao