1 CGHC010237992018 2026:CGHC:36980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1347 of 2018 1. Ajay Chouhan S/o Late Shri Bhikhari Ram Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Village And Tehsil Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Mendi Bai W/o Late Shri Dahru Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Village And Tehsil Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Dashru Ram Chouhan S/o Late Dahru Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Tuba, Tehsil Farsabahar, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh......(Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Vijay Kumar Gupta S/o Late B. P. Gupta Proprietor M/s Balaji Travels, R/o Village Tapkara, Tehsil Farsabahar, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Satyaram S/o Shri Peeto Ram Aged About 35 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Daltoli (Saraitoli) Police Station Tumla, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Permanent Branch Office Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.08.20 11:26:38 +0530 2 For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv. & Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (18.08.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the impugned award dated 20.04.2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (CG), in Motor Accident Claim Case No.69/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.3,55,000/- as compensation for the death of Dahruram, who died in a road accident that took place on 24.09.2017. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-, which, according to him, is even lower than the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer at the relevant time. It is further submitted that there are three claimants; however, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of consortium only to one claimant, thereby depriving the other two claimants of the compensation legally payable under the said head. It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be suitably enhanced in accordance with the settled principles of law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellants and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the award passed by the Tribunal is just & proper and does not require 3 any enhancement. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Though it was claimed by the claimants that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month from labour and agricultural work, no documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the said claim. The accident occurred on 24.09.2017 and, at the relevant time, the minimum wages prescribed even for an unskilled labourer were Rs.7,930/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.7,930/-, resulting in an annual income of Rs.95,160/-. 6. The deceased was a non-salaried person aged about 63 years at the time of the accident. There are three claimants in this case. 7. Considering the date of the accident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the deduction towards personal expenses and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal are just, proper and in accordance with law. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards consortium only to one claimant, whereas the other two claimants are also entitled to consortium in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, all the three appellants/claimants are held entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded under the heads of “loss of estate” and “funeral expenses”. 4 9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, the compensation is recomputed as under:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income 5000x12 =60,000 7,930 x 12 =95,160 2. Future prospects Nil Nil 3. Deduction (-) 1/3rd (i.e. 20,000) =40,000 (-)1/3rd (i.e. 31,720) = 63440 4. Multiplier (x) 7 = 280000 (x) 7 = 4,44,080 5. Funeral Expenses 15,000 15,000 6. Loss of Estate 20,000 15,000 7. spousal/ parental/filial consortium 40,000 1,20,000 (40,000 x 3) Total Rs. 3,55,000/- Rs. 5,94,080/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,55,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 5,94,080/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,55,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,39,080/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 12. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced/additional amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants reside. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai