1 CGHC010283862019 2026:CGHC:39242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1629 of 2019 1 - Gangaram Nag S/o Late Asharam Nag Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bodaras, Thana Kukanar, Tahsil Chindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Laxmi Nag D/o Shri Gangaram Nag Aged About 15 Years Minor Is Represented through natural gaurdian their father Shri Gangaram Nag R/o Village Bodaras, Thana Kukanar, Tahsil Chindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Payal Nag D/o Shri Gangaram Nag Aged About 10 Years Minor Is Represented through natural guardian their father Shri Gangaram Nag R/o Village Bodaras, Thana Kukanar, Tahsil Chindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dhanraj Nag S/o Shri Gangaram Nag Aged About 7 Years Minor Is Represented through natural gaurdian their father Shri Gangaram Nag R/o Village Bodaras, Thana Kukanar, Tahsil Chindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Pavan Kumar Nag S/o Gangaram Nag Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Chevaras, Thana Kukanar, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh (Driver and Owner of Offending Vehicle), 2 - The United India Insurance Company Limited Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company). ... Respondents For the appellants : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For respondent no.1 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For respondent no.2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.09 14:08:30 +0530 2 Order on Board 07.09.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewara Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 31/2018 whereby a total compensation of Rs.4,87,000/- has been awarded to the claimants. 2. The facts of the claim case, in nut shell, are that on 03.01.2017 deceased Rambati Nag accompanied by other relatives went to the engagement ceremony of her relative Ramsingh in village Kindarwada in Jeep No. C.G.17/C-3701. The said Jeep belonged to her relative Pawan Kumar Nag (Respondent no.1) and he was driving it. While returning from the engagement ceremony, the Jeep overturned on the public road between Gopawada and Gudra due to rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1, as a result of which, Rambati sustained grievous injuries on head and other parts of the body and died during treatment in hospital. Appellant no.1 was husband and appellants 2 to 4 are children of deceased. They being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 17,68,000/- on various heads. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 9000/- per month as a labour by forest produce collection and agriculture, but the learned Claims Tribunal had taken the notional income of Rs.3000/- per month. The Tribunal has not added any sum towards future prospects. The amounts granted under the conventional heads are also meagre, thereby, just compensation has not been awarded. He prays that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may 3 suitably be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the appellants have failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in taking monthly income of Rs.3000/- and thus it has passed the just award which needs no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have also perused the records. 6. In absence of any documentary evidence and considering the inflation and prevalent market rates, it would be just and proper to take the monthly income to be Rs.6206/- treating her as unskilled labour as per the the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages applicable in the State instead of Rs.3000/- as taken by the Tribunal. Thus the annual income comes to Rs.74,472/- (6206 x 12). It appears that the Tribunal has ignored to add future prospects to the income. Since the age of deceased was found to be 35 years and there are 4 claimants, following the principles laid down by Supreme Court, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% future prospectus, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 16. Thus the total loss of dependency is worked out to Rs. 12,51,136/- Under the other conventional heads, no amount has been granted under the loss of estate. There are four claimants/dependents in this case. The Tribunal has granted only Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and joint lump sump of Rs.30,000/- for loss of love and affection which is on lower side.Under Motor Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established that every individual child is entitled to a separate compensation for the loss of parental consortium. Thus each claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- separately and the total comes to Rs.1,60,000 for 4 claimants (40,000 x 4). Thus the impugned award is liable to be modified as per the above assessment. 4 7. 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 4,32,000/- Income Rs.6206/- X 12 = 74,472/- plus Future Prospectus- 40% i.e., 29,789 = 1,04,261 minus 1/4th deduction of personal expenses i.e., 26,065 = 78,196 x 16 multiplier = 12,51,136/- 2. Loss of estate …. 15,000/- 3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 4. Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- plus loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/- 40,000/- (40,000 x 4 ) 1,60,000/- Total Rs. 4,87,000/- 14,41,136/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,87,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,41,136/- Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 4,87,000/- the appellants are held entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 9,54,136/-. 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. 5 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the Insurer would submit that in this case, no breach of terms of insurance policy was found by the Tribunal. However, earlier the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated 18.08.2025 passed in similar nature of cases i.e., MAC Nos. 1083/2019 and MAC No. 1079/2019 filed by the Insurance Company arising out of the same incident, while partly allowing the appeals held that there was breach of policy and accordingly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability. However, the principle of pay and recover has been made applicable in those appeals. He prays that similar order of pay and recover be directed in this case. The said prayer is not opposed by the claimants or driver/owner. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao