1 CGHC010255272023 2026:CGHC:41983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1316 of 2023 1 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Late Santram Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Putpura, Police Station Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village Saragaon, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant). 2 - Smt. Late Sahu D/o Late Santram Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Putpura, Police Station Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village Saragaon, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 3 - Smt. Priyanka Sahu, D/o Late Santram Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Putpura, Police Station Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village Saragaon, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant). 4 - Smt. Pinki Sahu D/o Late Santram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Putpura, Police Station Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village Saragaon, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Appellants versus 1 - Hemlal Sahu S/o Late Ashok Kumar Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Putpura, Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Offending Motorcycle C.G. 22/S– 9998). 2 - Sukchand Sahu S/o Shri Mannulal Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Putpura, Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Motorcycle C.G. 22/ S – 9998). 3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through - Incharge Officer, Fafadih Chowk, Bilaspur Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Offending Motorcycle C.G. - 22/ S - 9998) ... Respondents 2 For the appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate For respondent no.3 : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 26.09.2026 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 04.03.2023 passed by the Ist Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 526/2020 whereby a total compensation of Rs.7,34,500/- has been awarded to the claimants. 2. The pleadings made in claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act are that on 14.10.2020 deceased Savitri Sahu, aged about 51 years, was going on a motorcycle as a pillion rider driven by respondent no.1 and when they reached near River Bridge, the said motorcycle fell down, due to which, deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately she was shifted to DKS Hospital and during treatment, she died on 15.10.2020. Respondent no.1 was son and respondents 2 to 4 are daughters of deceased. They being legal heirs claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 27 lakhs on different heads. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Tribunal had taken the lesser income of deceased as Rs. 5000/- per month by treating her as unskilled worker, which cannot be allowed to sustain. The amounts granted under the conventional heads are also meagre, thereby, just compensation has not been awarded. He prays that the 3 instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the appellants have failed to prove the nature of job and the income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, looking to the qualifications and the age, the Tribunal is justified in taking the income of the deceased treating her as unskilled labour and thus it has passed the just award which needs no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing stitching and embroidery works. However, considering the age and qualification of deceased, the Tribunal took the monthly income of deceased as Rs.5000/- treating her as unskilled labour, which is on lower side. In absence of any evidence regarding income and nature of job and looking to the prevalent market rates, it would be appropriate to take her monthly income to be Rs.8960/- treating her as unskilled labour as per the notifications of Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages applicable at the time of accident dated 14.10.2020. Since the age of deceased was found to be 51 years and there are 4 major and married claimants, dependents, following the case-law laid down by Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly added 10% future prospectus, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 11 which cannot be 4 said to be unsustainable. The Tribunal has awarded lesser sums under the conventional heads i.e., 1,60,000/- for loss of consortium (40000 x 4); Rs. 15,000/- for loss estate; and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses which needs to be suitably enhanced keeping in view the principle of 10% automatic enhancement for every 3 years. 7. 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 (modified) 1. Total loss of dependency 5,44,500/- Rs.8960 X 12 = 1,07,520 plus Future Prospectus- 10% i.e., 10,752 = 1,18,272 minus 1/4th deduction of personal expenses i.e., 29,568/- = 88,704 x 11…. multiplier = 9,75,744/- 2. Loss of estate 15,000/- 16,500/- 3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 16,500/- 4. Loss of consortium for four claimants (40,000 x 4) 1,60,000/- (44,000 x 4) x 1,76,000/- Total Rs. 7,34,500/- 11,84,744/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 7,34,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 5 11,84,744/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs 7,34,500/- the appellants are held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.4,50,244/-. 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. 9. 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 ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.28 16:56:04 +0530