1 2026:CGHC:4928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 605 of 2022 1 - Ugrasen Paikra S/o Negi Ram Paikra Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Sakalo- Bandhwapara, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Pharharo Paikra W/o Ugrasen Paikra Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sakalo-Bandhwapara, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mukhlal Yadav S/o Triloki Yadav Aged About 45 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver And Owner, R/o Village Chatniyan, P.S. Chando, Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Branch Manager Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Number-1, Second Floor, Subramaniyam Building Club House Road Chennai- 600002, Branch Office- Raj Chamber Near Over Bridge Mova, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.01.2026 1. The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against NIRMALA RAO 2 the award dated 3.1.2022, passed in Claim Case No.120 of 2021 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja, District Ambikapur whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.6,18,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment alongwith interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of Dileep Paikra. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that deceased Dileep Paikra met with an accident on 27.11.2020 when his motorcycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.04- JC-5287. He would contend that, admittedly, the deceased was working as a Computer Operator with Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Gopalpur and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He would submit that an employee of the said society namely Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, Committee Manager proved this fact and also issued a certificate Ex.P/10. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is at lower side. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium to the parents of the deceased and committed an error while applying the multiplier of 10 whereas, the age of the deceased was 23 years. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. He would submit that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased. He would further contend that no evidence was adduced to establish the fact that the deceased was a semiskilled or skilled labourer, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased 3 at Rs.7,000/- per month. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 5. A perusal of the record would show that, in the claim petition, the claimants categorically stated the fact that the deceased was working as a Computer Operator with Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Gopalpur. The Manager of the said Samiti proved this fact and also issued a certificate Ex.P/10. The Insurance Company could not dispute this fact. As the deceased was a Computer Operator, the learned Tribunal should have treated him a skilled labourer. The minimum wage admissible to a skilled labourer in the month of November, 2020 was Rs.10,390/- and the Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the compensation. The learned Tribunal further committed an error in denying compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants, who are parents of the deceased. 6. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 23 years and therefore, the correct multiplier should have been 18. However, the learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 without any justifiable reason, which also requires reconsideration. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation, and the same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 7,000 x 12 = Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 10,390 x 12 = Rs. 1,24,680/- 2. Future Prospect 40% - 33,600/- (84,000 40% - 49,872/- (1,24,680 4 + 33,600 = 1,17,600/-) + 49,872 = 1,74,552/-) 3. Deduction (-) 50% (58,800/-) (1,17,600 – 58,800 = 58,800/- (-) 50% (87,276/-) (Rs.1,74,552-87,276) = Rs. 87,276/- 4. Multiplier (x) 10 = Rs. (58,800 x 10 = 5,88,000/-) (x) 18 = Rs. (87,276 x 18 = 15,70,968/-) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium --- Rs. 44,000 x 2 = 88,000/- TOTAL Rs. 6,18,000/- Rs. 16,88,968/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.6,18,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.16,88,968/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.6,18,000/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.10,70,968/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi