Smt. Gangotri Vs Karamjit Singh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.11.26 15:08:26 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:57176

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1265 of 2024

¶7

Smt. Gangotri Wd/o Late Shyam Rajwade Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kuruvo, Post Dadri, Police Station Surajpur, Tehsil And District Surajpur (C.G.),...(Claimants)

¶8

Suraj S/o Late Shyam Rajwade Aged About 10 Years Minor, Through Natural Mother Smt. Gangotri Wd/o Late Shyam Rajwade Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Kuruvo, Post Dadri, Police Station Surajpur, Tehsil And District Surajpur (C.G.)

¶9

Raju S/o Late Shyam Rajwade Aged About 6 Years Minor, Through Natural Mother Smt. Gangotri Wd/o Late Shyam Rajwade Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Kuruvo, Post Dadri, Police Station Surajpur, Tehsil And District Surajpur (C.G.)

¶10

Manisha D/o Late Shyam Rajwade Aged About 8 Years Minor, Through Natural Mother Smt. Gangotri Wd/o Late Shyam Rajwade Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Kuruvo, Post Dadri, Police Station Surajpur, Tehsil And District Surajpur (C.G.)

¶11

... Appellant(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

Karamjit Singh S/o Mr. Amar Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Shivnadanpur, Police Station - Vishrampur, Tehsil And District Surajpur (C.G.), (Vehicle Owner),...(Non-Applicant No. 1)

¶14

Hridaynarayan S/o Bholaram R/o Village Kirvil, Police Station Mayorpur, District Sonbhadra (U.P.),...(Non-Applicant No. 2)

¶15

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Near Ambedkar Chowk, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District Surajpur (C.G.), (Insurance Company Of Truck),...(Non-Applicant No. 3)

¶16

Ramlakada S/o Sahdev Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kuruvo, Post Dedri Police Station Surajpur, Tehsil And District Surajpur (C.G.), (Driver Of Motorcycle),...(Non-Applicant No. 4)

¶17

Devendra Kumar Sinde S/o Mr. Samaylal Sinde R/o Village - Pandopara (Salka), Police Station, Tehsil And District Surajpur (C.G.), (Owner Of Motorcycle),...(Non-Applicant No. 5)

¶18

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Through, Branch Manager Address - 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, Office No. 516, G.E. Road,

¶19

2

¶20

Raipur (C.G.),...(Non-Applicant No. 6)

¶21

Tulsi Prasad S/o Late Sonsai Rajwade Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Kuruwo, Post Dadri, Police Station Tehsil And District Surajpur (C.G.),... (Non-Applicant No. 7)

¶22

8. Janki Bai W/o Shri Tulsi Prasad Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Kuruvo, Post Dadri, Police Station, Tehsil And District Surajpur (C.G.),...(NonApplicant No. 8)

¶23

... Respondent(s)

¶24

For Appellants/Claimants	: Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	: Ms. Kaushliya Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate
For Respondent No. 6	: Mr. Sobhit Mishra, Advocate

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶26

25.11.2025

¶27

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the 1 st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur in Claim Case No. 66/2020 dated 28.02.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 17,98,958/- with interest at the rate of 6% per anum in favour of the claimants on account of death of Shyam Rajwade.

¶28

Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate appearing for the claimants/appellants would argue that on 14.02.2019 at about 7:00 pm, the driver of the offending bike bearing registration No. CG 15 A 8130 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resultantly, he and the pillion rider sustained injuries and during course of treatment Shyam Rajwade died on 20.02.2019. She would further submit that the claim case was filed by the widow and three minor children, whereas, the parents were impleaded as respondents No. 7 and 8. She would contend that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 30 years and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased Rs.

¶29

3

¶30

7,000/- per month. She would further contend that though there were total six claimants, but the learned Tribunal granted compensation for loss of consortium to one of the claimants. It is argued that in absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix to assess the income of the deceased. She would pray to enhance the compensation.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the claimants could not prove income of the deceased in the claim petition; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed his income Rs. 7,000/- per month. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶33

The learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased 30 years, applied multiplier of 17, deducted 1/4th for personal and living expenses of the deceased. The learned Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased Rs. 7,000/- and further granted compensation on conventional heads, thereafter, award was passed and liability was fastened with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./respondent No. 3.

¶34

The claimants could not adduce evidence to prove the fact that the deceased was skilled labourer and earning Rs. 25,000 per month; therefore, the learned Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix prevailing at that point of time to assess the income of the deceased. The admissible wages to an unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2019 was Rs. 8,140/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure into account while computing the income of the deceased. Further

¶35

4

¶36

the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the children and the parents of the deceased.

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited herein- below:-

¶38

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 7000 x12 = Rs. 84,000/-	Rs. 8,140 x12 = Rs. 97,680/-
2.	Future Prospect	(40%) = Rs. 33,600/-	(40%) = Rs. 39,072/-
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/4 Rs. 29,400/- Rs. 88,200/-	(-) 1/4 Rs. 34,188/- Rs. 1,02,564/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 17 = Rs. 14,99,400/-	(x) 17 = Rs. 17,43,588/-
5.	Medical Expenses	Rs. 2,20,558/-	Rs. 2,20,558/-
6.	Travel Expenses	Rs. 5,000/-	Rs. 5,000/-
7.	Attendant	Rs. 2,000/-	Rs. 2,000/-
8.	Special Diet	Rs. 2,000/-	Rs. 2,000/-
9.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000	Rs. 15,000
10.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
11.	Loss of spousal consortium (for appellant No. 1)		Rs. 40,000/-

¶39

5

¶40

12.	Loss of parental consortium(for appellant No. 2)		Rs. 48,000/-
13.	Loss of parental consortium(for appellant No. 3)	Rs. 40,000/-	Rs. 48,000/-
14.	Loss of parental consortium(for appellant No. 4)		Rs. 48,000/-
15.	Loss of filial consortium(for respondent No. 7)		Rs. 48,000/-
16.	Loss of filial consortium(for appellant No. 8)		Rs. 48,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 17,98,958/-	Rs. 22,83,146/-

¶41

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 17,98,958/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 22,83,146 / - . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 17,98,958 / -, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,84,188 /- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶42

Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed.

¶43

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶44

$iddhant

Smt. Gangotri v. Karamjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gangotri v. Karamjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sirimati Vs Pawan Singh

Tulsi Ram Karsh Vs Babulal Yadav

United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs Smt. Chanda Bai Urao

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Bharti Sahu

Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Leelavati

Jageshwari Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh