1 CGHC010080882023 2026:CGHC:42570 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 357 of 2023 1 - Smt. Dhanmoti W/o Late Chheduram Ram Rathia Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Charmar, Thana and Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Liladhar S/o Late Chheduram Ram Rathia Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Charmar, Thana And Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Priyanka D/o Chheduram Ram Rathia Aged About 13 Years R/o Village Charmar, Thana and Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Bhuneshwar Prasad S/o Umed Singh, R/o Ghinara, Thana Kartala, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattigarh, Hall Mukam-Dhaskamuda, Thana Jobi, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sevanti Rathia W/o Shiya Ram Rathia Address Village Chhal Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - The National Insurance Company Limited through the Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Address Plot No. 768, Near Rishu Baar Ke Kosabadi, Niharika Main Road Korba Tahsil and District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Arjun Lal Singraul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Advocate, along with Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 30.09.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 2 “MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh in Claim Case MACC No. 44 of 2020 whereby a total compensation of Rs.13,53,800/- has been awarded to the claimants. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 30.06.2020 deceased Chheduram was going to his home on his Motorcycle. On the way, respondent no.1 who was driving the offending Motorcycle in rash and negligent manner hit the deceased’s motorcycle resultantly deceased fell down alongwith his motorcycle and sustained injuries on head and other parts of his body. He was brought to the Hospital and during treatment he succumbed to the injuries. Appellant No.1 is wife and appellants 2 & 3 are children of deceased. They being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 71,55,000/- on various heads. 3. The Insurance Company has also filed cross objection challenging the quantum of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income taken by the Tribunal is on lower side. He further submits that joint lumpsum figure of Rs. 44,000/- has been granted to all the 3 claimants towards loss of consortium though each dependent-claimant is individually entitled to receive separate consortium. Therefore, the award be suitably enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the income taken by the Tribunal is on higher side. He submits that the age of deceased was mentioned as 48 years in the Aadhar Card, however, the Tribunal has not accepted the Aadhar Card and considered his age as 42 years, therefore, higher compensation has been awarded by making lesser deduction. He prays that the award be suitably be modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival 3 submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The contention raised by counsel for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal has not considered the age mentioned in Aadhar Card cannot be accepted for the reason that neither any evidence was adduced by the Insurer to prove the age mentioned in the Aadhar Card nor any pleading was made in this regard before the Tribunal. In a decision rendered in Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. (2024 INSC 816) Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that an Aadhaar card cannot be accepted as authoritative proof of an individual's date of birth or age. 8. The Tribunal has taken the basis of the autopsy application and report (Ex.P-06) which show the deceased Chheduram’s age as 42. The claimants’ compensation application also states the deceased’s age as 42. Therefore, no reasonable grounds are available to consider the age of deceased to be 48 years. Hence, the Tribunal considering the autopsy report (Ex.P-6) and other criminal case documents has rightly considered the age of deceased as 42 years at the time of incident. 9. As regards the income, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- by doing the job of head-mason. In absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, the Tribunal took the income of deceased at Rs.9120/- treating him as unskilled labour as per the minimum wages, which cannot be said to be unsustainable. 10. Since the age group of deceased was found to be 41-45 years and there are 3 dependents, following the case-law laid down by Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly added 25% future prospectus, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 14. Under the conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium for all the claimants (total Rs. 70,000) and further applying the principle of 10% automatic enhancement, the Tribunal has granted Rs.77,000/- on 4 other heads (Rs.70,000 plus Rs.7000) 11. It appears that a joint lumpsum figure of Rs.44000/- has been granted for loss of consortium for all the three claimants. Under Motor Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established that every individual dependent-claimant is entitled to a separate compensation for the loss of parental/spousal consortium. Thus each claimant is entitled to Rs.44,000/- separately and the total comes to Rs.1,32,000 for the wife and two children (44,000 x 3). Consequently, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified to this extent, and the appellants are entitled to an additional amount of 88,000 under this specific head. ₹ 12. 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 Rs.9120/- X 12 = 1,09,440/- plus Future Prospectus- 25% i.e., 27,360 = 1,36,800/-. minus 1/3rd deduction of personal expenses i.e., 45,600 = 91,200 x 14 multiplier = 12,76,800/- 12,76,800/- (Unchanged) 2. Loss of estate 16,500/- (15000 plus 10% enhancement Rs.1500) 16,500/- 3. Funeral expenses 16,500/- (15000 plus 10% enhancement Rs.1500) 16,500/- 4. Loss of consortium 44,000/- (44000 x 3 5 or love and affection for all the claimants (40000 plus 10% enhancement Rs.1500/-) dependents) 1,32,000/- Total Rs. 13,53,800/- 14,41,800/- 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.13,53,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs… 14,41,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 13,53,800/- the appellants held entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 88,000/-. 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. 14. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part and the cross objection filed by the insurer is dismissed. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao