Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24173
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Ishwari Bai – Appellant
Versus
Irsad Ansari – Respondent
MAC No. 440 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Utkarsh Patel, Pushpendra Kumar Patel
For the Respondents: Anil Gulati
The court modified the compensation award by enhancing the total amount based on a re-computation of future prospects and consortium, while balancing the arguments regarding the deceased's monthly income.
Headnote:(A) Motor Accident Compensation - Enhancement of Award - Future Prospects and Consortium - Claimants are entitled to the addition of future prospects and appropriate consortium amounts to ensure just compensation for the dependents of the deceased. (Para 3, 7)
(B) Assessment of Income - Minimum Wage - The determination of the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation must align with the prevailing minimum wage notifications at the time of the accident. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal requires enhancement based on future prospects and consortium, or reduction based on the assessment of monthly income.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of appeal for enhancement and cross-objection for reduction of compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding future prospects, consortium, and minimum wage for income assessment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's review of records and re-computation of the compensation amount. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. modification of the award to enhance compensation and final disposal of the case. (Para 7 , 8) |
Judgment on Board
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation challenging the impugned award dated 17/07/2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in MACT No. 142/2015 whereby compensation of Rs. 12,37,500/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of Bhakta Ram and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.
2. Cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC r/w Rule 242(3) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 has also been filed by the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company seeking reduction of compensation amount.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal ought to have granted 25% towards future prospect and it has only granted Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of consortium whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 48,000/- x 6 = Rs. 2,88,000/-, therefore, the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,500/- whereas it should be Rs. 6,000/- as per the minimum wage notification prevailing at the time of the accident, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be reduced.
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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on the appeal as well as cross-objection, this Court is computing the compensation as mentioned below :-
[[IMG_1]]
7. Thus, the amount of compensation of Rs. 12,37,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,26,500/-. Hence, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 99,000/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 23/07/2015 till its realization. The rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
8. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the appeal as well as cross-objection, both are disposed of.
