1 CGHC010205592026 2026:CGHC:39893 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1283 of 2026 Devna Bai Mandavi W/o Late Sukhdev Ram Mandavi Aged About 52 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Umradah, Post Belmand, Police Station And Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh (Claimant No. 01) … Appellant versus 1. Jitendra Kumar S/o Manrakhan Sahu Aged About 37 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Iraguda, Police Station And Tahsil Gundardehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 24 T 8101) 2. Pritam Kumar Sahu S/o Bisambhar Sahu Aged About 26 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Gorkapar, Police Station And Tahsil Gundardehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 24 T 8101) 3. Branch Manager/ Divisional Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited R/o 4th Floor Maruti Heights Building, Beside Of R.K. Mall, Mahoba Bazar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 24 T 8101) (Policy No. 209039/31/24/010821) (Valid Dated Till 24-07-2023 To 23-07-2028) 4. Lakhan Lal Mandavi S/o Late Sukhdev Ram Mandavi Aged About 34 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Umradah, Post BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.15 10:34:04 +0530 2 Belmand, Police Station And Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh (Claimant No. 02) 5. Makhan Lal Mandavi S/o Late Sukhdev Ram Mandavi Aged About 32 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Umradah, Post Belmand, Police Station And Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh (Claimant No. 03) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. P. K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Deepak Gupat, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (11.09.2026) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent No.3–Insurance Company, the matter was heard finally. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the impugned award dated 30.01.2026, passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod (CG), in Claim Case No.126/2024, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.13,35,217/- as compensation for the death of Bhagwat Mandavi, who died in a road accident that took place on 25.03.2024. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,762/-, which, according to her, is even lower than the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer at the relevant time. 3 It is further submitted that consortium has been awarded only to the mother of the deceased, whereas the other two claimants who are the brother of the deceased are also entitled to the same in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be suitably enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Though it was claimed by the claimants that at the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs.15,000 per month by working as a driver, no documentary evidence in this regard has been brought on record to substantiate the said claim. The accident occurred on 25.03.2024 and the minimum wages of even an unskilled labourer at that time was Rs.10,100/-. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.10,100 /-, resulting in an annual income of Rs.1,21,200/-. 7. The deceased was an unmarried, non-salaried person aged between 26 and 30 years at the time of the accident. There are three claimants i.e. the mother and two elder brothers of the deceased. The Tribunal, however, has considered only the mother of the deceased to be dependent upon him. 4 8. Considering the date of the accident, the age of the deceased, and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the addition towards future prospects, 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. 48,000/- towards loss of consortium only to the mother of the deceased, whereas the other two claimants, being the brothers of the deceased, are also entitled to consortium in accordance with law. Accordingly, the two brothers of the deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,000/- each towards loss of consortium. 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 8762x12 =105144 10,100 x 12 =1,21,200 2. Future prospects (+)40% (i.e.42,058) = 1,47,202 (+)40% (i.e. 48480) = 1,69,680 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 =73,601 (-)1/2 = 84840 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 12,51,217 (x) 17 = 14,42,280 5. Funeral Expenses 18,000 18,000 6. Loss of Estate 18,000 18,000 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 7. Loss of consortium 48,000 1,44,000 (48,000 x 3) Total Rs. 13,35,217/- Rs. 16,22,280/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.13,35,217/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 16,22,280/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.13,35,217/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional/enhanced amount of Rs.2,87,063/-. The additional/enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award stands 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