1 CGHC010355872018 2026:CGHC:36979 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1803 of 2018 1. Amos Bakhla S/o Shri Serafenus Bakhla Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Bagima, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Aruna Bakhla D/o Shri Serafenus Bakhla Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Bagima, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 3. Smt. Miliyani Bakhla Wd/o Late Kamil Bakhla Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Rajaval, P.S. Dumri, District Gumla (Jhakhand). 4. Serafenus Bakhla S/o Late Kamil Bakhla Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Rajaval, P.S. Dumri, District Gumla (Jhakhand). 5. Smt. Basanti W/o Shri Serafenus Bakhla Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Rajaval, P.S. Dumri, District Gumla (Jhakhand). 6. Ku. Alma Bakhla D/o Shri Serafenus Bakhla Aged About 17 Years (Minor) Through Next Friend, Appellant No. 4, Serfenus Bakhla, R/o Village Rajaval, P.S. Dumri, District Gumla (Jhakhand). 7. Anmol Bakhla S/o Shri Serafenus Bakhla Aged About 16 Years (Minor) Through Next Friend, Appellant No. 4, Serfenus Bakhla, R/o Village Rajaval, P.S. Dumri, District Gumla (Jhakhand). BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.08.20 11:26:38 +0530 2 8. Ku. Mamta Bakhla D/o Shri Serafenus Bakhla Aged About 15 Years (Minor) Through Next Friend, Appellant No. 4, Serfenus Bakhla, R/o Village Rajaval, P.S. Dumri, District Gumla (Jhakhand). 9. Kumar Anusha Bakhla D/o Shri Serafenus Bakhla Aged About 13 Years (Minor) Through Next Friend, Appellant No. 4, Serfenus Bakhla, R/o Village Rajaval, P.S. Dumri, District Gumla (Jhakhand). ... Appellants versus 1. Supinder Singh Bassi Director - Poona Ranchi Cargo Movers, Pvt. Ltd. Office Ramdas Oil Mill Road Dhobi Gali, Behind Shiv Mandir, Monifit, P.O. Telco Jamshedpur - 831004 (Jharkhand), Local Address Poona Cargo Mover Pvt. Ltd. Behind Bharat Mata School. Tatibandh, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 2. Rajni Pramaanik D/o Prahalad Pramaanik Aged About 30 Years Occupation - Driver R/o Village - Tamuliya Kapali, Dobo Kapali, P.S. Chandil, District Saraikela (Jharkhand) 3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Local Branch Office - Shop No. 412-413, 4th Floor Ravi Bhawan, Jay Stamb Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Mansi Bandey, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, 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, 3 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the impugned award dated 31.07.2018, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Jashpur (CG), in Claim Case No.49/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,65,600/- as compensation for the death of Dhankumar Bakhla, who died in a road accident that took place on 25.10.2015. 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.6,000/-, whereas, according to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a Superintendent in a hostel. It is, therefore, submitted that the deceased ought to have been treated as a skilled worker and his income reassessed accordingly. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium, although the claimants are legally entitled to compensation under the said head. It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be suitably enhanced. 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 any enhancement. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 4 5. It is the case of the claimants that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a Superintendent in a hostel. However, no documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the said claim. The accident occurred on 25.10.2015 and, at the relevant time, the minimum wages prescribed even for a skilled labourer were Rs.6,302/- per month. Considering the nature of work stated to have been performed by the deceased, he ought to be treated as a skilled worker. Accordingly, his monthly income is reassessed at Rs.6,302/-, resulting in an annual income of Rs.75,624/-. 6. The deceased was a non-salaried, unmarried person aged about 52 years at the time of the accident. Learned Tribunal has treated two claimants, namely, mother Smt. Miliyani Bakhla and younger brother Serafenus Bakhla, as dependants of the deceased and has not treated the other claimants as dependants, they being the wife and children of Serafenus Bakhla. 7. Considering the date of incident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the addition towards future prospects, the deduction towards personal expenses, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal and the amount awarded under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses are just, proper and in accordance with law. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards consortium. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation under the head of consortium. 8. Consequently, the mother and brother of the deceased, i.e. appellants No.3 and 4, are held entitled to consortium of 5 Rs.40,000/- each. 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 6000x12 =72,000 6,302 x 12 =75,624 2. Future prospects (+)10% (i.e.7,200) = 79,200 (+)10% (i.e. 7562.4 in round figure 7562) = 83,186 3. Deduction (-) ½ =39,600 (-)1/2 = 41,593 4. Multiplier (x) 11 = 4,35,600 (x) 11 = 4,57,523 5. Funeral Expenses 15,000 15,000 6. Loss of Estate 15,000 15,000 7. spousal/ parental/filial consortium Nil 80,000 (40,000 x 2) Total Rs. 4,65,600/- Rs. 5,67,523/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the compensation of Rs.4,65,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 5,67,523/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.4,65,600 /- already awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants No.3 & 4 are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,01,923/-. 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 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 impugned award shall remain unaltered. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned 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