Smt. Neera Singh Vs Aman Kumar

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.10.07 14:15:11 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:49617

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 130 of 2024

¶7

1 - Smt. Neera Singh W/o Ajay Kumar Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o C 1/122, Nikat Rashtriya Chouraha, Indranagar Kanpurnagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, At Present Resident Of Through Ajay Singh, Gali No.3, Sector-3, Near Jhulelal Provision Store, Professor Colony Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Ajay Kumar S/o Narendra Singh Aged About 62 Years R/o C 1/122, Nikat Rashtriya Chouraha, Indranagar Kanpurnagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, At Present Resident Of Through Ajay Singh, Gali No.3, Sector-3, Near Jhulelal Provision Store, Professor Colony Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

(Claimants)

... Appellants

Versus

1 - Aman Kumar S/o Ramsajivan Ram R/o Bairi, Kalyanpur House No.168, Bairi, Kalyanpur, Kanpurnagar, Kanpur Uttar Pradesh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. U.P.78 E.L. 0101)

¶13

2 - Ramprasad Kanaujiya S/o Ramsingh R/o House No.96, Bairi, Kalyanpur, Kanpurnagar, Kanpur Uttar Pradesh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. U.P.78 E.L. 0101)

¶14

3 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Incharge Officer, Shri Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Plot No.01, Fourth Floor, Maruti Heights R.K. Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. U.P.78 E.L. 0101)

¶15

		... Respondents
For Appellants/Claimants	:	Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 & 2/ Driver & Owner	:	None
For Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company	:	Mr. Praversh Sahu, Advocate

¶16

2

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

¶18

06/10/2025

¶19

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the learned VIII^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 903/2021 dated 04.12.2023, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.12,34,840/- with interest @ 8% per annum on account of death of Deepanshu Singh.

¶20

The facts, in brief, are that on 29.03.201 at about 12:00 in the night while deceased- Deepanshu Singh was returning his home on his motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-70-CF-1381, near Panki Road Police Outpost, driver of offending car bearing registration No. UP-78EL-0101 by driving it in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorbike of the deceased, consequently he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. At the time of accident, age of the deceased was 28 years; he was unmarried person. The claimants are parents. It is also pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as Interior Decorator. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.62,00,000/-. The driver, owner and insurance company filed their reply to claim application and denied its averments. The parties led evidence and thereafter, the learned Claims Tribunal passed an award.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would argue that the learned Claims Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at lower side. He would contend that deceased Deepanshu Singh was working as Interior Decorator and was earning

¶22

3

¶23

Rs.20,000/- per month and that figure has not been considered by the learned Claims Tribunal. He would fairly submits that on the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded proper compensation. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would oppose. He would submit that the claimants failed to adduce documentary evidence to establish the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working Interior Decorator, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,800/- per month. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶26

Admittedly, at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 28 years and as pleaded that he was working as Interior Decorator, but in absence of documentary evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,800/-. According to minimum wages matrix, the wages admissible to unskilled labour in the month of March 2021 was Rs.8,960/- and thus, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at lower side. The learned Tribunal has deducted 50% for personal and living expenses as the deceased was unmarried; 40% addition to the annual income towards future prospect; applied multiplier of 17 looking to the age of the deceased and awarded proper compensation on conventional heads.

¶27

4

¶28

Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. 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. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors ., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is re-computing the compensation as below:-

¶29

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income as per minimum wages	Rs.7,800/- per month	Rs.8,960/- per month
2.	Future prospect 40%	Rs.3,120 + Rs.7800/- = Rs.10,920/-	Rs.3,584 + 8,960 = Rs.12,544/-
3.	Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses	Rs.10920 – 5,460 = Rs.5,460/- per month	Rs.12,544 – 6,272 = Rs.6,272/- per month
4.	Per month Income of the deceased	Rs.5,460/-	Rs.6,272/-
5.	Annual Income of the deceased	Rs.5,460/- x 12 = Rs.65,520/- per annum	Rs.6,272 x 12 = Rs.75,264/- per annum
6.	Multiplier of 17	Rs.65,520/- x 17 = Rs.11,13,840/-	Rs.75,264/- x 17 = Rs.12,79,488/-
7.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.16,500/-	Rs.16,500/-
8	Loss of Estate	Rs.16,500/-	Rs.16,500/-
9.	Filial Consortium to Claimants	Rs.88,000/-	Rs.88,000/-
	Total :	Rs.12,34,840/-	Rs.14,00,488/-

¶30

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.12,34,840/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.14,00,488/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.12,34,840- , the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of

¶31

5

¶32

Rs.1,65,648/- . The Insurance Company/respondent No.3 is directed to deposit enhanced compensation within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The 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.

¶33

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.

¶34

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

vatti

Smt. Neera Singh v. Aman Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neera Singh v. Aman Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lobhan Vs Peru

Yadram Ghritlahare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satya Darshan Yogashram And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Devichandra Pardhi Vs Sunil Kumar Dewangan

Gagra Ram Kashyap Vs Naindhar Patel

Hetram Patel Vs Suddhudas