1 CGHC010351972023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1845 of 2023 1 - Smt. Tusiya W/o Lt. Anand Ram Aged About 55 Years (wife of deceased) Residing at Ward No. 17, Khutrapara, Village- Podi, P.S. Khadgawa,, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sushila Bai W/o Suraj Lal Aged About 35 Years (Wife of Deceased) Residing Ward No. 17, Khutrapara, Village- Podi, P.S. Khadgawa,, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Uttraprasad Banjare D/o Sukhram Banjare Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Tilkeja, PS- Urga, (Driver), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Govind Ram Tandon S/o Shri Fulsay Tandan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Tilkeja, PS- Urga, (Owner), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Gopal Business Park, First Floor,26, I.C.C. Nagar, Korba, C.G (Insurance Company) (Bolero No. CG 12 AK 3488, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For the appellants : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For respondent no.3 : Mr. Praveen Tulsyan, Advocate For respondents 1 & 2 : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 25.09.2026 2 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chirimiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.13/2023 whereby a total compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- has been awarded to the claimants. 2. The pleadings made in claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act are that deceased Anand Ram, aged about 58 years, died in a motor accident occurred on 23.06.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 who drove the offending Bolero No. C.G.12/AK-3488 which hit the motorcycle of . Deceased. Appellant No.1 widow and appellant no.2 is stated to be adopted and married daughter of deceased. They being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs.25,40,000/- lakhs on various heads. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that income taken by the Tribunal is on lower side and no future prospects has been added to the income of deceased. Deceased was married and appellant no.1 is his widow, therefore, the deduction in case of death of a married person is 1/3rd, however, the Tribunal has deducted one-half (½) towards personal expenses which cannot be allowed to sustain in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Sarla Verma (Smt.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 which has been followed by this Court in MAC No. 872 of 2020 (National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Firoz Ansari) decided on 01.05.2025. He further submits that while granting consortium, Tribunal has ignored the appellant no.2 being an adopted daughter of deceased though she is entitled for the same. He therefore prays that the impugned award be suitably enhanced. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the Tribunal has awarded just and proper award which needs no interference. He further submits that appellant no.2 was major, married lady and she is residing with her husband at 3 the time of accident and further no document was produced to prove that she was an adopted daughter of appellant no.1 (wife) and deceased (husband). Therefore, she is not entitled to any sum towards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection. Hence the order of Tribunal in not granting any compensation to appellant no.2 is proper. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by doing the job Head-Mason. Looking to the nature of job, the Tribunal took the monthly income of deceased as Rs.7000/ treating him as unskilled worker. In absence of any documentary evidence regarding the nature of job and income of deceased and looking to the prevalent market rates, it would be appropriate to take his income at Rs.8860/- treating him as unskilled labour as per the Minimum Wages applicable in the State at the relevant time. The Tribunal has not added any sum to the income of deceased towards Future Prospects. Therefore, looking to the age of deceased, it would be appropriate to grant 10% future prospects. 7. Admittedly, appellant no.1 was wife of deceased and she was dependent on him. Appellant no.2 Sushila is stated to be an adopted daughter of deceased. In this regard, Appellant No.1 Smt. Tulsya has admitted in her cross examination that no adoption-deed was produced as Sushila was a major daughter. Therefore, the Tribunal considering that appellant no.1 was the only dependent of deceased, deducted one-half towards personal expenses which cannot be allowed to sustain in view of the decision of this Court rendered in MAC No.872/2020 decided on 01.05,.2026 where the claimant wife was also the sole dependent of deceased. In that case, relying on decision of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn (supra,) this Court has followed the principle that in case of death of married person, the standard deduction is 1/3rd and not one-half (½). The Court further held that the Tribunal had wrongly deducted one-half (½) towards personal expenses and therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in that case was set 4 aside. In that view of the matter, in the instant case, it would be appropriate to deduct 1/3rd from the income of deceased instead of one-half (½) as deducted by the Tribunal. 8. As regards the amounts granted under the conventional heads i.e., Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to wife; Rs.15000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15000/- for funeral expenses are slightly required to be enhanced In view of the principle of 10% automatic enhancement for every 3 years. 9. Thus, 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 3,78,000/- Rs.8860 X 12 =1,06,320 plus 10% Future Prospectus- i.e., 10,632 = 1,16,952 minus 1/3 deduction of personal expenses i.e., 38,984/- = 77,968 x 9 multiplier = 7,01,712/- (changed) 2. Loss of estate 15,000/- 16,500/- 3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 16,500/- 4. Loss of consortium for wife 40,000/- 44,000/- Total Rs. 4,48,000/- Rs. 7,78,712/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 5 4,48,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 7,78,712/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.4,48,000/-, appellant no.1 Smt. Tulsiya is held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.3,30,712/-. 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. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.26 16:57:28 +0530