Smt. Nirmala Chandrakar Vs Dilip Ram Nishad

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL

¶3

NAFR

¶4

2025:CGHC:53983

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 226 of 2018

¶7

1 - Smt. Nirmala Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In The Cause Title As Chandrakar) W/o Late Shri Mehatru Chandrakar, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Rashni, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Smt Silochana Chandrakar W/o Late Shri Mehatru Chandrakar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Rashni, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Ramsharan Chandrakar S/o Late Mehatru Chandrakar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Rashni, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - Smt Taruna Chandrakar W/o Shri Ramsharan Chandrakar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Rashni, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Dilip Ram Nishad S/o Shri Ramsay Nishad R/o Village Bemcha, (Nili Badha), Police Station And Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.. (Driver And Owner Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C G P A 3489), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶14

2 - I F C C O Tokio General Insurance Co . Ltd Through The Branch Manager, I F C C O Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Lal Ganga Shopping Mal Complex, G E

¶15

Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C G 06 P A 3489), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

2

¶17

--- Respondents

¶18

_____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Judgment on Board

¶21

04.11.2025

¶22

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 16.08.2017 passed by the learned Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 39/2014.

¶23

By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,84,964/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of the deceased/ Mehatru Ram Chandrakar in an accident that took place on 25.08.2013 at about 1:00 pm, when he was coming back from his field then the respondent No. 1 by driving rashly and negligently the Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. CG-06-PA-3489 dashed him and as a result of which, he succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the accident. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Hence, the appellants/claimants have prayed that the respondent No. 1 being the driver & owner and respondent No. 2 being the insurer were jointly and severely liable to pay compensation.

¶24

It was pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased Mehatru Ram Chandrakar was a healthy person and used to earn Rs. 250/- per day

¶25

3

¶26

by doing the work of a carpenter in parshuram Furniture Mart. The deceased was a sole bread earner of the family. The claimants suffered the agony of untimely death of Mehatru Ram Chandrakar and faced mentally and economically sufferings as such, they claimed a total sum of Rs.18,00,000/- with interest as compensation under various heads.

¶27

In its written statement, the respondent no. 2/ Insurance Company has denied the fact that the accident was ever taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1, while driving the motor cycle bearing no C.G. 06 PA 3489, however, the deceased himself got accident by carelessly crossing the road. Further pleaded that respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving license and moreover, the present appellants/claimants are claiming for hefty amount, the same falls under the breach and violation of insurance policy, liability, if any, to pay compensation is of respondents No. 1/ owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

¶28

Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the claimants for enhancement

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the appellants/claimants has filed this appeal for enhancing of the award, in which the income of the deceased, who was a carpenter has not been taken properly, since the deceased was a carpenter which has been considered by the Tribunal, as such, the income of the deceased should have been taken as skilled labour on the date of incident i.e., 25.08.2013, according to minimum wages at the relevant time, skilled labours are required to be given Rs. 5,385/- per month. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded less

¶30

4

¶31

compensation under the other heads. Thus, the appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation suitably.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 supporting the award impugned submits that the learned Tribunal minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper according to the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

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

¶34

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶35

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 5,84,964/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs.3,59,964/- towards total loss of dependency, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation, funeral and last rites expenses of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal awarded the total sum of Rs. 5,84,964/-.

¶36

11.As regards income of the deceased, though the claimants/appellants have pleaded that he was earning Rs. 250 per day by doing the work of carpenter, but no documentary or oral evidence in support thereof has been adduced. Therefore, in these circumstances, the income of the deceased Mehatru Ram Chandrakar as a skilled labour is considered as Rs. 5,385/- per month as per minimum wages at the

¶37

5

¶38

relevant time.

¶39

In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side in the other heads also and the same requires reconsideration. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the compensation in the following manner

¶40

S. No.	Head	Awarded bythis Court(Rs.)
1.	Income of the deceased	5385x12= 64,620/-
2.	1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased	64,620-21540 = 43,080/- p.a.
3.	Multiplier applied	09
4.	Total loss of dependency	3.87,720/-(43,080x9)
6.	For loss of consortium to the claimants No. 1 to 4. with 10% increase in every three years	48,000/- each i.e., Total Rs. 1,92,000/-
7.	For loss of estate with 10% increase in everythreeyears	18,000/-
8.	For funeral expenses with 10% increase in everythreeyears	18,000/-
9.	For transportation with 10% increase in everythreeyears	18,000/-
	Total compensation awarded	6,33,720/-

¶41

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimants/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.6,33,720/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 5,84,964/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.48,756/-. This additional amount of compensation shall

¶42

6

¶43

carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶44

Appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned award to

¶45

the extent as indicated herein above.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶48

AMIT PATEL

Smt. Nirmala Chandrakar v. Dilip Ram Nishad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nirmala Chandrakar v. Dilip Ram Nishad

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

Rajendra Kumar Sen Vs Narayan Sen

Abhishek Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Indubai Vaishnav Vs Modhram Mahant

Smt. Chandra Kiran Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jeevan Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Seema Deve Paswan