Smt. Mumtaz Vs Ajay Kumar Tandon @ Bablu

1. Ajay Kumar Tandon @ Bablu S/o Rajesh Tandon Aged About 27 Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Village Torma, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Hyva No. C.G. 04 N G – 4762)

¶12

2. M/s Ganesh Borewell Through Partner Amit Agrawal, S/o Sampat Agrawal, Age- 36 Years, R/o Wall Fort City, A-15, Bhatagaon, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Hyva No. C.G. 04 N G – 4762)

¶13

3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, 1st Floor, L I C Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Hyva No. C.G. 04 N G - 4762)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Appellants	: Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 & 2	: Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate

¶16

2

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Judgment On Board

¶19

19-11-2025

¶20

1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 701/2022 dated 27.10.2023 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 16,35,557/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Karan Kumar Kurre.

¶21

2) Facts of the present case are that on 26.10.2021, motorcycle of the deceased Karan Kumar Kurre was dashed by the offending vehicle-Hyva bearing registration No. CG-04-NG-4762. In the accident, Karan Kumar Kurre sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment on 3.11.2021.Claimants, who are parents of the deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,96,000/- and pleaded that the deceased was aged about 18 years and was earning Rs. 12,000/per month working as mason. Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and Claims Tribunal passed the award.

¶22

3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was was a Mason i.e. skilled laborer aged about 18 years but Claims Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased to be

¶23

3

¶24

Rs. 7,800/- per month which is not in consonance with the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. She fairly submits that under conventional heads, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. She prays to modify the award accordingly.

¶25

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They submit that claimants could not plead and prove the monthly income of the deceased, therefore learned Claims Tribunal has rightly treated the deceased to be an unskilled laborer. The further submit that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶27

6) Evidently, Smt. Mumtaz (AW/1) has deposed in evidence that deceased was earning Rs. 400-500/- per day working as mason and her family was dependent on the income of the deceased. She further deposed that work orders were issued in favor of the deceased to complete the construction work of various houses. Learned Claims Tribunal has treated the deceased to be an unskilled laborer holding that claimants could not adduce any documentary evidence to demonstrate that work orders, if/any were issued in favor of the deceased.

¶28

4

¶29

7) Admittedly, age of the deceased was 18 years, therefore it cannot be presumed that work orders were issued in favor of the deceased to complete construction work of houses. As pleaded by the claimants, the deceased was a mason but in absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be held that he was a skilled laborer/contractor or work orders were issued in his favor, therefore learned Claims Tribunal rightly treated the deceased to be an unskilled laborer.

¶30

8) However, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,800/- whereas according to the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, minimum wages payable to an unskilled laborer in October, 2021 was Rs. 9,280/- per month and Claims Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. However, under other conventional heads Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and same does not warrant any interference.

¶31

9) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:

¶32

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	^{Compensation awarded} by this Court
1.	Annual Income	Rs. 7,800 x 12 = Rs. 93,600/-	Rs.9,280 x 12 = Rs. 1,11,360/-
2.	Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses	Rs.46,800/- (@1/2)	Rs.55,680/- (@1/2)

¶33

5

¶34

3.	Annual Income adding Future Prospect	Rs.65,520/- (@40%)	Rs.77,952/- (@40%)
4.	Annual Income after applying Multiplier	Rs.11,79,360/- (@18)	Rs.14,03,136/- (@18)
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 44,000/- + Rs. 44,000/- = Rs. 88,000/-	Rs. 44,000/- + Rs. 44,000/- = Rs. 88,000/-
8.	Medical Bills	Rs. 3,35,197/-	Rs. 3,35,197/-
	TOTAL	Rs.16,35,557/-	Rs.18,59,333/-

¶35

10) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.16,35,557/awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.18,59,333/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,23,776/- . The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of application till its realization.

¶36

11) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶39

A j i n k y a

Smt. Mumtaz v. Ajay Kumar Tandon @ Bablu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mumtaz v. Ajay Kumar Tandon @ Bablu

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

Mahesh Ram Vs Smt.Janki

Ramadhin Sahu Vs Avinash Sharma

Vivek Kathuriya Vs Khub Lal Sahu

P. v. Rao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. P. Asha Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ful Singh Nag (Died Through Lrs) Vs Mandev and Others