1 2026:CGHC:20149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 829 of 2019 1 - Smt. Tarawati, W/o. Sukhwiser, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Ahirpara, Geji, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ramratan Singh, S/o. Ramsay, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Village Ahirpara, Geji, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 3 – Naniharo, W/o, Ramratan Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Village Ahirpara, Geji, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Savita, D/o. Sukhwiser, Aged About 14 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Tarawati, R/o. Village Ahirpara, Geji, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Kamla, D/o. Sukhwiser, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Tarawati, R/o. Village Ahirpara, Geji, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 6 – Raju, S/o. Sukhwiser, Aged About 9 Years, Minor Through Natural ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.04.30 17:50:02 +0530 2 Guardian Mother Tarawati, R/o. Village Ahirpara, Geji, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 7 – Pawan, S/o. Sukhwiser, Aged About 6 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Tarawati, R/o. Village Ahirpara, Geji, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Jusef Bek, S/o. Sanwel Bek, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village Budar, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G. - 16-C-5047) 2 - Astin Kujur, S/o. Bife Kujur, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Village Salwa, Post Mansukh, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.- 16-C-5047) 3 - H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor, Chawla Complex, N.B.S.P. Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.-16-C-5047) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate 3 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 30.04.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Korea, in Claim Case No.08/2018, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,78,400/- has been awarded to the claimants for the death of Sukhviser, aged about 37 years, at the time of accident. 2. Appellants, who are wife, father, mother & four children of deceased Sukhviser, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 76,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased Sukhviser, aged about 37 years, was sole bread earner of the family and on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties. 4 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Sukhviser died in the accident arising out of rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 herein. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved and after calculating the amount of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7,78,400/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 4. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded very meager amount, as the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased to be Rs.4,500/- per month, which should be Rs. 7,930/- per month, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal may be enhanced suitably. 5. Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 (driver & owner) and Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company, would submit that the appellants have failed to prove the exact income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, 5 hence, the learned Claims Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Sukhviser to be Rs. 4,500/- per month, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 7,930/- per month. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is re-computing the compensation as below:- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 4,500 per month i.e. Rs. 4500 x 12 = Rs. 54,000/- per annum Rs. 7,930 per month i.e. Rs. 7,930 x 12 = Rs. 95,160/- per annum Add future prospects Add @ 25% :- Rs. 54,000 + Rs. 13,500 = Rs. 67,500/- Add @ 40% :- Rs. 95,160 + Rs. 38,064 = Rs. 1,33,224/- Deduction towards personal expenses ¼ th : Rs. 67,500 – 16,875 = Rs.50,625/- i.e. Rs. 50,600/- 1/5th : Rs. 1,33,224 –26,644 = Rs. 1,06,580/- Multiplier Rs. 50,600 x 14 = Rs. 7,08,400/- Rs. 1,06,580 x 15 = Rs. 15,98,700/- Loss of consortium to appellant No.1 Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 48,000/- Loss of consortium- parental & filial to appellants No.1 to 7 Nil Rs. 2,88,000/- (48,000 x 6) Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 7,78,400/- Rs. 19,70,700/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 7,78,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 19,70,700/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 7,78,400/- already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 11,92,300/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months. The 7 additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok