Dismissed

Gagra Ram Kashyap v. Naindhar Patel

Chhattisgarh HC5 Oct 2025MAC/140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh considered an appeal against an award of Rs.8.33 lakh death compensation. The court found the Tribunal considered income based on minimum wages, applied correct multipliers, and awarded proper conventional heads. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the award of the Tribunal is maintained.

Gagra Ram Kashyap Vs Naindhar Patel — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

-1-

REKHA SINGH

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 140 of 2024

¶6

1 - Gagra Ram Kashyap S/o Late Pakluram Kashyap Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Takraguda, Near Arora Petrol Pump, P.S. - Bastar, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)

¶7

2 - Ramdev Kashyap S/o Gagra Ram Kashyap Aged About 31 Years (Father Name Wrongly Mentioned In Order Impugned) R/o Village Takraguda, Near Arora Petrol Pump, P.S. - Bastar, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Naindhar Patel S/o Maniram Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Village Khaspara, Village Kolchur, Post - Parchanpal, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Cum Driver Of The Vehicle)

¶11

2 - Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Vanijyaik Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)

¶12

... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate along with Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shekhar Ameen, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

06.10.2025

¶16

1. Heard.

¶17

1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of

¶18

-2-

¶19

compensation against an award passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar, place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.24/2021 dated 26.09.2023 whereby, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.8,33,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Panchmi Kashyap.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the appellants are husband and son of the deceased. He would further submit that on 05.06.2020, while the deceased Panchmi Kashyap was going to her agricultural field on motorcycle bearing registration No.CG.17/KR/9105 as pillion rider, the said bike was dashed by offending vehicle pick-up bearing registration No.C.G.17/KT/0434. Resultantly, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. He would contend that the age of the deceased was 55 years and she was earning Rs.1,60,000/- per annum. He would contend that the claimants claimed sum of Rs.26,03,000/with interest. It is argued that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the notional income of the deceased and applied the minimum wages payable to unskilled labour. He would contend that on conventional heads also, the learned Tribunal has not granted just and proper award. He would pray to enhance the compensation.

¶21

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tulsyan. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

-3-

¶23

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

¶24

1. Learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages matrix to the tune of Rs.9000/- per month, which appears to be proper. Learned Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd looking to the number of the dependents and applied multiplier of 9 looking to the age of the deceased. Learned Tribunal further awarded compensation on conventional heads according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.

¶25

1. It appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation.

¶26

1. With regard to agriculture income, it is neither pleaded nor proved by the claimants that the claimants are not getting income from the agricultural field, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Tulsyan cannot be accepted and that figure cannot be considered as notional income.

¶27

1. Taking into consideration the facts discussed-above and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶30

Rekha

Gagra Ram Kashyap v. Naindhar Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagra Ram Kashyap v. Naindhar Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Smt. Neera Singh Vs Aman Kumar

Hetram Patel Vs Suddhudas