1 2026:CGHC:19154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1414 of 2019 1 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Though Its Authorized Signatory., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Divya Vishwakarma Wd/o Late Ravi Sharma Aged About 24 Years Residents Of Ram Sagar Para, Near Sindhi School, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Pihu D/o Late Ravi Sharma Aged About 2 Years Minor Is Represented By Her Mother And Next Friend Smt. Divya Sharma, Aged 24 Years, Wd/o Late Ravi Sharma Residents Of Ram Sagar Para, Near Sindhi School, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Malti Wd/o Late Mahant Prasad Sharma Aged About 58 Years Residents Of Ram Sagar Para, Near Sindhi School, Raipur, Tahsil And HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.04.28 11:19:08 +0530 2 District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shubam S/o Late Mahant Prasad Sharma Aged About 21 Years Residents Of Ram Sagar Para, Near Sindhi School, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - (Deleted) Dashrath Singh As Per Honble Court Order Dated 24-06- 2024. 6 - Rajiv Ranjan Roy S/o Late Awadesh Roy R/o H.No. 29, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. R.N. Pusty with Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocates For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 25.04.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 30/04/2019 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 237/2018 whereby compensation of Rs. 18,63,600/- 3 has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants and liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC has also been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would raise a sole submission that the younger brother of the deceased namely Shubham, aged about 21 years, has also been treated as a dependent of the deceased even though he is an earning member of the family and therefore, cannot be a dependent and thus, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd instead of 1/4th as taken by the Claims Tribunal. As such, the impugned award is liable to be reduced. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants would submit that the monthly income of the deceased has been taken as Rs. 8,000/-, however, as per the minimum wage notification prevailing at the time of the accident, it should be Rs. 9,360/- and the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- under loss of consortium whereas it ought to have awarded Rs. 1,60,000/-, 4 thus, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. So far as the appeal of the appellant/Insurance Company is concerned, having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, I do not find any merit in this appeal as younger brother of the deceased namely Shubham is aged about 21 years and there is not concrete evidence on record that he is an earning member, as such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly made a deduction of 1/4th amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. 7. Coming to the cross-objection filed by respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, a careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000/-, however, as per the minimum wage notification prevailing at the time of the accident, it ought to have been taken as Rs. 9,360/- and further rs. 1,60,000/- ought to have been granted under loss of consortium instead of Rs. 1,20,000/-. 5 8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is calculating the compensation as stated below :- Heads of Compensation Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Loss of dependency Rs. 8,000/- + 40% (future prospect) = Rs. 11,200/- - 1/4th (deduction)= Rs. 8,400/- x 12 x 17 (multiplier) = Rs. 17,13,600/- Rs. 9,360/- + 40% (future prospect) = Rs. 13,104/- - 1/4th (deduction) = Rs. 9,828/- x 12 x 17 (multiplier) = Rs. 20,04,912/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/- Total Rs. 18,63,600/- Rs. 21,94,912/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 18,63,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 21,94,912/-. Hence, the claimants are held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 3,31,312/-. Appellant/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 @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 04/04/2018 till 6 its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is hereby dismissed whereas the cross-objection filed by respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants is hereby allowed the impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet