Yogita Dewangan Vs Ishwar Dayal Yadav

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date:2025.11.21 12:54:24 +0530

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

NAFR

¶5

MAC No. 1471 of 2024

¶6

Yogita Dewangan W/o Late Ashok Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post-Riva (Lakholi), Thana Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur (C.G.) -----(Claimants)

¶7

Pradeep Dewangan S/o Late Ashok Dewangan, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Yogita Dewangan Appellant No.1, R/o Village And Post-Riva (Lakholi), Thana Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur (C.G.) -----(Claimants)

¶8

Pramod Dewangan S/o Late Ashok Dewangan, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Lagal Guardian Mother Yogita Dewangan Appellant No.1, R/o Village And Post-Riva (Lakholi), Thana Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur (C.G.) -----(Claimants)

¶9

Premin Dewangan W/o Trilochan Dewangan, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And Post-Riva (Lakholi), Thana Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur (C.G.) -----(Claimants)

¶10

Trilochan Dewangan S/o Late Lakharam Dewangan, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village And Post-Riva (Lakholi), Thana Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur (C.G.) -----(Claimants)

¶11

... Appellant(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

Ishwar Dayal Yadav S/o Ram Ashish Yadav, Aged About 35 Years Through Raju Yadav, Indira Nagar R/o Hathkhoj (East) Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) Pin Code No. 490021. Additional Address Through Ma Laxmi Roadways, Ravabhatha Raipur, Thana- Urla, District Raipur (C.G.) ----(Driver)

¶14

Anuj Kumar Sharma S/o Sunil Kumar Sharma, R/o House No. 30, Bhanpuri Dhanlaxmi Nagar, Tahsil And District-Raipur (C.G.), Pin Code No. 492011. Additional Address R/o Harshit Vihar Urkura, Thana-Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) ---(Owner)

¶15

3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.2, 2nd Floor L,i.C. Investment, Building Phase 1 Jivan Bima Marg, Pandari Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code No. 492004. ----(Insurer)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Appellants/Claimants	: Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3/	: Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate holding the brief
Insurance Company	of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶18

2

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶20

20.11.2025

¶21

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 471/2021 dated 19.01.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 16,92,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per anum on account of death of Ashok Kumar Dewangan.

¶22

Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that on 07.02.2021 at about 2:00 pm the motorcycle of the deceased/Ashok Kumar Dewangan was dashed by Truck bearing registration No. CG 04 HR 4694, resultantly, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. She would further submit that the widow, two children and parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, wherein they pleaded that on the date of accident age of the deceased was 34 years and earning Rs. 20,000/-. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of of the deceased Rs. 7,500/- only and also failed to award compensation for loss of consortium to parents. She would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate appearing for the Insurance company would oppose. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

Admittedly, age of the deceased was 34 years and earning, as pleaded by

¶26

3

¶27

the claimants, Rs. 20,000/-. The claimants could not prove the fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month; therefore, the learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix to assess the notional income of the deceased. The minimum wages admissible to unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2021 was Rs. 8,710/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken into consideration that figure while computing compensation. Further, learned Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium to three of the claimants out of five. The multiplier and deduction applied by the learned Tribunal appear to be proper.

¶28

Taking into consideration 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 granted by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and same is being revisited

¶29

herein-below:-

¶30

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 7,500 x12 = Rs. 90,000/-	Rs. 8,710 x12 = Rs. 1,04,520/-
2.	Future Prospect	(40%) = Rs. 36,000/-	(40%) = Rs. 41,808/-
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/4 Rs. 31,500/- Rs. 94,500/-	(-) 1/4 Rs. 36,582/- Rs. 1,09,746/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 16 = Rs. 15,12,000/-	(x) 16 = Rs. 17,55,936/-
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 18,000/-	Rs. 18,000/-

¶31

4

¶32

6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 18,000/-	Rs. 18,000/-
7.	Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 1)	Rs. 1,44,000/-	Rs. 1,44,000/-
8.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 2)
9.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 3)
9.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 4)	NIL	Rs. 44,000/-
9.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 5)	NIL	Rs. 44,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 16,92,000/-	Rs. 20,23,936/-

¶33

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 16,92,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 20,23,936 / - . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 16,92,000 / -, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,31,936 /- with interest at the rate of 9%. The Insurance company 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. The appellants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal . Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶34

Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed.

¶35

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶36

$iddhant

Yogita Dewangan v. Ishwar Dayal Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogita Dewangan v. Ishwar Dayal Yadav

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

P. v. Rao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mumtaz Vs Ajay Kumar Tandon @ Bablu

Smt. P. Asha Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Sahu Vs Dharmendra Singh Meravi @ Bablu

Rahul Bhaskar Vs Sanjeev Thomas

Smt. Taramani Paikra Vs Shiva