1 2026:CGHC:12099 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 544 of 2021 1. Rathram Karsh Son Of Kuhkuram Karsh Aged About 43 Years Resident Of Village Balouda (Hasua), P.S. Gidhouri Tundra, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Padma Bai Wife Of Rathram Karsh Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Balouda (Hasua), P.S. Gidhouri Tundra, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1. Ramkumar Son Of Parsuram Rahi Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Tiwaripara, Kharoud, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver Vehicle), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2. Rakesh Dubey Son Of Bijendra Dubey Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Tiwaripara, Kharoud, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Owner Vehicle) 3. Santosh Kumar Gupta Son Of Sonuram Gupta Resident Of Tiwaripara, Kharoud, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tractor Trolley) 4. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Paras Collection, Gurudwara Opposite Side (S.B.I.) Station Road Kumhari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 13.03.2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation assailing the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) passed in Claim Case No. 80/2016 dated 24.02.2018, whereby learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,79,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Paleshwar Karsh. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 27.12.2014 at around 07:15 pm, the motorcycle of the deceased Paleshwar Karsh was dashed by offending truck bearing Registration No. CG-04- KE-0414. In the said accident, Paleshwar Karsh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. Claimants, who are the parents of deceased filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 51,05,000/-. They pleaded that the deceased was aged 23 years and was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed. 3 3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,000/- per month which is not in consonance with the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. He further submits that learned Tribunal has not granted adequate compensation on conventional heads. He would prays for enhancement in the compensation. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He submits that claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading cogent evidence and therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed it Rs. 4,000/- per month. He submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Admittedly, age of the deceased was 23 years and pleaded income was Rs. 7,000/-, but the claimants could not prove the income of the deceased by leading cogent evidence. In absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix. The minimum wage payable to an unskilled laborer in month of December, 2014 was Rs. 5,500/- per month and learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing income of the deceased. The Tribunal further committed error while granting a fix sum of Rs. 77,000/- towards 4 loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, thus, the compensation requires reconsideration and the same is being revisited herein-below: Sr. No . Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 48,000/- (@Rs. 4,000 pm) Rs. 66,000/- (@Rs. 5,500 pm) 2. Future Prospect Rs. 19,200/- (@40%) Rs. 26,400/- (@40%) 3. Deduction Rs. 33,600/- (@1/2) Rs. 46,200/- (@1/2) 4. Multiplier Rs. 6,04,800/- (@18) Rs. 8,31,600/- (@18) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 30,000/- (love and affection) Rs. 96,000/- (two claimants) TOTAL Rs. 6,79,800/- Rs. 9,63,600/- 7) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,79,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 9,63,600/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,83,800/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of compensation as enhanced by this Court assessed herein-above within period of 60 days. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact. The appellants shall not be entitled to 5 receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal. 8) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Manish