Smt. Jethi Bai Jain Vs Bhanwarlal Rathi

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

2025:CGHC:49775

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1153 of 2019

¶7

1 - Smt. Jethi Bai Jain W/o Prem Raj Baghmar @ Premraj Jain Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Tongpal District Sukma Chhattisgarh. Present Add. Kali Mandir Raut Para Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Prem Raj Baghmar @ Premraj Jain S/o Roopchand Jain Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Tongpal District Sukma Chhattisgarh. Present Add. Kali Mandir Raut Para Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Bhanwarlal Rathi S/o Damodar Rathi Aged About 55 Years R/o Abhanpur Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - National Insurance Company Ltd,. In Front Of Head Post Office, Above Central Bank Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellants : Shri Vikash Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

07.10.2025

2

The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 21.1.2019, passed in Claim Case No.155 of 2018 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.8,44,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Jitendra Baghmar.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the deceased, alongwith few others were travelling in a Bolero bearing registration No.C.G.04 KQ 5444 on 22.6.2014. The driver of the said vehicle by driving it rashly and negligently hit a mango tree, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. The claimants, who are parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He would submit that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 27 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month; however, the learned Tribunal assessed his income of Rs.5,000/- per month only. He would fairly submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation under other heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation.

¶21

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 produce the documents to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and the learned Tribunal has passed a just and proper award. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶23

3

¶24

Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 27 years and he was unmarried. Although it was pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- but in absence of documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month. According to the minimum wages matrix, the wages payable to a semiskilled labourer in the month of June, 2014 was Rs.5,650/- and the learned Tribunal ought to have considered this figure while assessing the compensation. It is not in dispute that on other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation.

¶25

Considering the above-stated facts, the award passed by the learned

¶26

Tribunal requires recomputation:

¶27

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 5,000 x12 = Rs. 60,000/-	Rs. 5,650 x 12 = Rs. 67,800/-
2.	Future Prospect	40% - 24,000/- (60,000 + 24,000 = 84,000/-)	40% - 27,120/- (67,800 + 27,120 = 94,920/-)
3.	Deduction	(-) 50% (42,000/-) (84,000 – 42,000 = 42,000/-	(-) 50% (47,460/-) (i.e. Rs. 94,920-47,460) = Rs. 47,460/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 17 = Rs. (42,000 x 17 = 7,14,000/-)	(x) 17 = Rs. (47,460 x 17 = 8,06,820/-)
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
7.	Love and affection	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 80,000/-	Rs. 80,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 8,44,000/-	Rs. 9,36,820/-

¶28

4

¶29

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.8,44,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.9,36,320/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.8,44,000/- , the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.92,820/- . 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 @ 9% 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.

¶30

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

Nimmi

Smt. Jethi Bai Jain v. Bhanwarlal Rathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jethi Bai Jain v. Bhanwarlal Rathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devichandra Pardhi Vs Sunil Kumar Dewangan

Smt. Neera Singh Vs Aman Kumar

Gagra Ram Kashyap Vs Naindhar Patel

Hemkishan Sahu Vs Smt. Krishna Bai

Smt. Girija Bai Rawate Vs Arvind Pandey

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Khorbahra Dhruv