Partly allowed

Smt. Babita Paikra v. Sachin Dev

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jul 2025MAC/264/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part to enhance compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court reassessed the deceased's income based on minimum wages notifications, awarded loss of consortium to all dependents, and computed the total enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation awarded to appellants to Rs. 19,86,760/-. Interest @ 8% per annum from date of claim filing.

Smt. Babita Paikra Vs Sachin Dev — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

-1-

2025:CGHC:35889

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 264 of 2024

¶6

1 - Smt. Babita Paikra Wd/o Late Mahesh Kumar Aged About 29 Years

¶7

2 - Ku. Anushka Paikra D/o Late Mahesh Kumar Aged About 6 Years

¶8

3 - Anurudra Paikra S/o Late Mahesh Kumar Aged About 3 Years

¶9

(Appellant No. 2 & 3 Through Their Legal Guardian Mother i.e. Appellant No 1)

¶10

4 - Shri Ramashankar S/o Holsai Aged About 70 Years

¶11

5 - Ram Bai Paikra W/o Ramashankar Aged About 67 Years

¶12

All R/o Village- Shatharpara, Champajhar, P.S. Patna, Teh. Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Appellant (s)

¶14

versus

¶15

1 - Sachin Dev S/o Surendra Kumar Aged About 33 Years R/o Vill Telimuda, P.S. Patna, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶16

2 - Om Prakash Singh S/o Paltu Singh (Now Dead)

¶17

Legal Heir:

¶18

2.A - Smt. Raneeta Wd/o Late Om Prakash C/o Sanju Yadav R/o In Front Of Basdeyi Hospital, Post- Basdeyi, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.12 10:25:58 +0530

¶20

3 - Branch Manager Iffco Tokyo, General Insurance Company, Limited, 2nd Floor Shop No. 205 M.M. Silver Plaza In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office, Ring Road,no. 1, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

-2-

¶22

... Respondent(s)

¶23

__________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Resp. No. 2-A : Mr. Atul Kumar Gavel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajit Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Pravesh Shau, Advocate _______________________________________________________

¶24

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶25

Judgment On Board

¶26

24/07/2025

¶27

This is claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (CG) vide award dated 01.03.2023 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.09 of 2021.

¶28

Date of accident and death of Mahesh Kumar due to motor accidental injuries suffered by him, involvement of offending vehicle driven by non-applicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2, insured by nonapplicant No.3 as also liability to satisfy the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal are not in dispute.

¶29

In the aforementioned facts of case, this Court is not discussing the facts as pleaded in claim application, written statement/reply submitted by parties before the Claims Tribunal and is only considering the grounds raised in this appeal and submission of learned counsel for respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned

¶31

-3-

¶32

Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation. Income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.6000/- per month only which in the fact of case is on lower side. She also contended that amount of compensation under head of ‘loss of consortium’ is also on lower side. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ to all the appellants/claimants but has awarded ‘loss of consortium’ to appellant/claimant No.1 (wife) only.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the receptive respondents oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that amount of compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal, in the facts of the case, is just and proper. Claimants failed to prove nature of occupation as also income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the claim case.

¶35

So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants with regard to assessment of income as Rs.6000/- per month by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, date of accident is 20.01.2020. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded the occupation of deceased to be a agricultural labourer and his income to be Rs.15,000/- per month. True it is that claimants have failed to prove income of deceased by placing admissible evidence, however, in absence of admissible evidence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased considering the other factors like cost of living, price index, wage structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act

¶36

-4-

¶37

for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident.

¶38

For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority, Chhattisgarh under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the Notification for ‘class-C zone/area’ monthly income for ‘unskilled labourer’ for the period from 01.10.2019 to 31.03.2020, has been fixed as Rs.8600/- per month. Hence, looking to the date of accident i.e. 20.01.2020, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8600/- per month instead of Rs.6000/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

Learned Claims Tribunal, looking the age of the deceased on the date of accident to be 35 years, has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects. Looking to the number of dependents, as such, learned Claims Tribunal has also rightly made deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses of deceased in tune of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.

¶40

Learned Claims Tribunal looking to the age of deceased as 35 years, has correctly applied multiplier of 16. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- each under the head- ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.1/wife under the head – ‘spousal consortium’.

¶41

Award under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ has been quantified by

¶42

-5-

¶43

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further types of consortium is explained in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 and it is held that husband/spouse will be entitled for loss of ‘spousal consortium’, children will be entitled for loss of ‘parental consortium’ and parents will be entitled for loss of ‘filial consortium’ of Rs.40,000/each. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- only to appellant/claimant No.1 towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’. In the case at hand, claimants No.2 and 3 are children and claimants No.4 and 5 are parents of deceased- Mahesh Kumar, therefore, they are also entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of parental consortium’ and ‘loss of filial consortium’ respectively.

¶44

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% in every three years and, therefore, compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head of ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’ to claimants No. 1 to 5 has to be enhanced by 10% and it will be Rs.16,500/-, Rs.16,500/- and Rs.2,20,000/- (44,000 x 5) respectively.

¶45

For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:-

¶46

-6-

¶47

S. N.	Heads		Compensation
1.	(A)Loss of Income/dependency 8600 x 12 =103200	:	Rs. 17,33,760
	(B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40%(103200x 40% =41280) 103200+ 41280= 1,44,480 (C)Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses ( 1,44,480 x1/4= 36120) 1,44,480 -36120=108360/- (D)Multiplier of 16 108360 x 16=17,33,760
2.	Funeral Expenses (15000 x 10 %=16500)	:	(+) Rs. 16,500
3.	Loss of Estate (15000 x 10 %=16500)	:	(+) Rs. 16,500
4.	Spousal Consortium to claimant/appellant No.1 (wife) (40,000 x 10 % =44,000)	:	(+) Rs. 44,000
5.	Loss of parental consortium to claimants/appellants No. 2 & 3 (children) of 44,000/- each (40,000 x 10 % =44,000) (44,000 x 2=88,000)		(+) Rs. 88,000
6.	Loss of filial consortium to claimants/appellants No. 4 & 5 (parents) of 44,000/- each (40,000 x 10 % =44,000) (44,000 x 2=88,000)		(+) Rs. 88,000
	Total compensation		Rs. 19,86,760

¶48

Now appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of

¶49

Rs. 19,86,760/- instead of Rs.12,79,600/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶50

Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per

¶51

-7-

¶52

annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶53

Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶56

Praveen

Smt. Babita Paikra v. Sachin Dev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Babita Paikra v. Sachin Dev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Padum Patel

Branch Manager, Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Brihaspati Bai

Smt. Indrani Verma Vs Chote Lal

Smt. Chandrika Vs Santosh Kumar Ravte

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Indarbati Bai Nishad