1 CGHC010024502024 2026:CGHC:41791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 217 of 2024 1 - Devprasad Anchal S/o Shri Ganeshram Anchal Aged About 46 Years Resident of Village-Cell, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 2 - Smt. Ramayan Bai W/o Shri Devprasad Anchal Aged About 43 Years Resident of Village-Cell, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 3 - Jyoti S/o Shri Devprasad Anchal Aged About 23 Years Resident of Village-Cell, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 4 - Sangeeta D/o Devprasad Anchal Aged About 22 Years Resident of Village-Cell, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Ramanand Singh Aged About 58 Years Resident Of House No. 09, Sanjay Nagar Adarsh Para Supela Market Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. 2 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, Office No. 501, 05th Floor DBCD Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Ground, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents For the appellants : Mrs. Gunjan Rani Agrawal and Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For respondent no.2 : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate 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 04.10.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 107/2022 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 10,29,600/- has been awarded. 2. The pleadings made in claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act are that deceased Virendra Kumar Anchal, aged about 29 years, died in a motor accident occurred on 01.09.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 who drove the offending Truck No. C.G. 07/AX-8599 which hit the motorcycle of deceased. Appellants 1 & 2 are parents and appellants 3 & 4 are unmarried sisters of deceased. They being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 51 lakhs lakhs on various heads. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 16000/- per month by dealing in business of ready-made clothes, but the learned Claims Tribunal had meagerly taken the income of Rs.7000/- per month which is on lower side. He further submits that there are four claimants including parents and two unmarried sisters, therefore, looking to the number of dependents, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of one-half. He further submits that it has not granted any sum for loss of consortium, therefore, just compensation has not been awarded. He prays that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2/Insurer submits that the appellants have failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income of 3 deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in taking the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker 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. There are four claimants in this case including father, mother and two unmarried sisters. The Tribunal has observed that no evidence has been placed to show that two sisters were dependents solely on their brother’s (deceased) income. In the absence of evidence to this effect, the Tribunal considered that these two sisters were dependents on their father but being unmarried sisters of deceased, they are certainly entitled to a portion of the compensation. However, since the deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal considering the number of dependents of the deceased and following the decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty (2017) 16 SCC 680, deducted one-half of the income towards for personal expenses. The said finding of tribunal cannot be said to be unsustainable. Therefore, the contention of appellants that 1/3rd deduction ought to have made by Tribunal is rejected. 7. In accordance with the pleadings, the deceased's father, Dev Prasad Anchal, has testified that the deceased had studied up to Class 12 by proving mark-sheet (Exhibit A-78) and had also received the certificate of 'Sanskrit Gyan' examination (Exhibit A-79). He possessed a PAN card but did not file income tax returns. He used to sell ready made garments in the market, earning an income of ₹15,000 to ₹20,000. Purchase receipts of the ready-made garments (Exhibits A-22 to A-77) have been submitted. The RC book of the motorcycle owned by him (Exhibit A-80) and his driving license 4 (Exhibit A-81) have also been produced. Although there is no direct proof of income, the evidence regarding his business is clear; therefore, the deceased's income is assessed at ₹14,000 per month. 8. Since the deceased was a bachelor of 29 years of age and there are 4 dependents, following the case-law laid down by Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly added 40% future prospectus, deducted one-half and applied multiplier 17 which cannot be said to be unsustainable. Under the other conventional heads, the amounts granted by the Tribunal I.e, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses needs to be lightly enhanced. The Tribunal has not granted any sum towards loss of consortium for the claimants though they are entitled for the same. Based on established legal precedents in motor accident claim cases, parents and unmarried siblings are legally entitled to compensation for loss of consortium. 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 (Changed) 1. Total loss of dependency 9,99,600 Rs.14,000 X 12 =1,68,000/- plus 40% Future Prospectus- i.e., 67,200/- = 2,35,200/- minus one-half (1/2) deduction of personal expenses i.e., 1,17,600/- = 1,17,600 x 17 multiplier = 19,99,200/- 2. Loss of estate 15,000/- 16,500/- 3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 16,500/- 5 4. Loss of consortium or loss of love and affection ……….. 44,000 x 4 dependents 1,76,000/- Total Rs. 10,29,600/- Rs. 22,08,200/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.10,29,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 22,08,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,29,600/- the appellants are held entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 11,78,600/- 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: 2026.09.28 16:50:54 +0530