1 2026:CGHC:2432 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 917 of 2022 1 - Smt. Somati Bai W/o Late Yalsingh Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Ward No. 4, Mujgahan Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod (C.G.) Present Address Village Bori, P.S. Bori, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.). 2 - Roman Lal Sahu S/o Late Yalsingh Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Ward No. 4, Mujgahan Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod (C.G.) Present Address Village Bori, P.S. Bori, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Abhishek Das S/o Sudhakar Das Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Marribaengla, Post Deori, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod (C.G.) (Driver Cum Owner). 2 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Claim Manager, Office 2nd Floor, Shiv Arpan Complex, 18/14, South Gangotri, Supela, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.2/Insurance Company : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 15/01/2026 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 1. The appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation, assailing the award passed by the learned VIIIth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Claim Case No. 449/2019, dated 04.05.2022, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,18,200/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, on account of the death of Yal Singh Sahu. 2. Ms. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that on 27.03.2019 at about 5 p.m., the deceased was returning home on his bicycle and the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-24-L-0715 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed his bicycle. She would further contend that in the said accident, deceased Yal Singh Sahu sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment, died on 19.04.2019. She would contend that the claimants, who are widow and son of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 55 years and was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal assessed income of the deceased to Rs. 7,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. She would further contend that in absence of proof of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix. 3. She would argue that the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of March, 2019, was Rs. 8,660/- per month and the learned Tribunal should have taken the said figure while computing the compensation. She would fairly submit that under other heads, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation; thus, she prays for enhancement of compensation accordingly. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions made by learned 3 counsel for the appellants and support the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the Insurance Company/respondent No.2. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. 7. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to Rs. 7,000/- per month. It is true that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages applicable at the relevant time for assessing the income of the deceased, therefore, the income of the deceased is reassessed by taking into consideration the minimum wages prevailing in the month of March, 2019, and the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal (A) Compensation awarded by this Court (B) 1. Annual Income ₹7,000 × 12 = 84,000 ₹ ₹8,660 × 12 = 1,03,920 ₹ 2. Future Prospects 10% = 8,400 ₹ 10% of 1,03,920 ₹ = 10,392 ₹ Total Income ₹92,400 1,14,312 ₹ 3. Deduction (1/2) ₹46,200 57,156 ₹ 4. Multiplier ₹46,200 × 11 = 5,08,200 ₹ ₹57,156 × 11 = 6,28,716 ₹ 5. Loss of Consortium (Spouse) 70,000 ₹ 40,000 ₹ 6. Funeral Expenses 15,000 ₹ 7. Loss of Estate ₹15,000 4 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal (A) Compensation awarded by this Court (B) 8. Loss of Consortium to Claimant No.2 (Son) ₹40,000 40,000 ₹ Total Compensation ₹6,18,200 7,38,716 ₹ Final Compensation A – B = ₹1,20,516 In view of the above calculation, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled to an additional sum of ₹1,20,516. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation of ₹1,20,516 with interest @ 7% per annum to the appellants/claimants within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim