Sirimati Vs Pawan Singh

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 323 of 2020

¶5

1 - Sirimati W/o Late Kumar Singh, Aged About 50 Years Caste - Gond, Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Kushmaha, Police Station - Sonhat, Post- Katghori, Tahsil- Sonhat, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶6

2 - Shivshanker S/o Late Kumar Singh Aged About 22 Years Caste- Gond, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village- Kushmaha, Police Station- Sonhat, Post- Katghori, TahsilSonhat, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶7

3 - Sanjiya D/o Late Kumar Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Kushmaha, Police Station- Sonhat, Post - Katghori, Tahsil - Sonhat, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

4 - Kanti D/o Late Kumar Singh Aged About 26 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o VillageKushmaha, Police Station- Sonhat, Post- Katghori, Tahsil- Sonhat, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh......(Claimants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Pawan Singh S/o Raghunath Aged About 56 Years Caste- Gond, Occupation Service, Secl Churcha Colliery, R/o. Village- Katghori, Post- Katghori, Tahsil And Police StationSonhat, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Holsai S/o Pancham Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Viratnagar, Pandopara, P.S. Patna, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. (Owner)., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Brach Office Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Appellants/Claimants	: Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate
For respondent No.1	: Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate
For respondent No.3	: Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

24.11.2025

¶18

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation

¶19

-2-

¶20

against an award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) in Claim Case No.84/2018 dated 14.10.2019 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.23,87,941/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Kumar Singh.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that on 30.04.2018 at about 9:00 pm., the deceased was traveling in the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.15/DF/8018 as pillion rider and rider of the motorbike was Pawan Singh. He would further submit that Pawan Singh drove the bike rashly and negligently and lost balance, consequently, Kumar Singh fell down from motorcycle and sustained serious injuries and during course of treatment died on 06.05.2018. He would contend that the deceased was an employee of SECL and his earning was Rs.3,51,203/- per annum as assessed by the Tribunal. He would further contend that age of the deceased was 55 years as considered by the learned Tribunal but the learned Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 9 instead of 11. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has not granted proper compensation for future prospect which should have been 15% of income. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has further not granted compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants No.2 to 4. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶22

1. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dhurandhar. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. They would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

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

¶24

-3-

¶25

1. Learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased 55 years and correct multiplier should have been 11 but the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 9 which is erroneous. With regard to income of the deceased, there is no dispute. For future prospect, learned Tribunal has awarded 10% of the notional income of the deceased, whereas, the deceased was salaried employee, it should have been 15%. Learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to claimants No.2 to 4, who are children of the deceased.

¶26

1. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires

¶27

recomputation and same is being revisited herein below :

¶28

Sr.No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Yearly Income	Rs.3,51,203/-	Rs.3,51,203/-
2.	Future Prospect	10% of 3,51,203=35,120/- 3,51,203 + 35,120=3,86,323/-	15% of 3,51,203 = Rs.52,680/- 3,51,203 + 52,680 = Rs.4,03,883
3.	Deduction	1/3 of 3,86,323= Rs.1,28,774/- 3,86,323-1,28,774=2,57,549/-	1/3 of 4,03,883 = 1,34,627/- 4,03,883- 1,34,627 =2,69,256
4.	Multiplier	9 x 2,57,549=23,17,941/-	11 x 2,69,256 = 29,61,816/-
5.	For funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
6.	For loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium (for appellant No.1)	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.40,000/-
8.	Loss of Consortium (for appellant No.2, 3 & 4)	Not awarded	Rs.40,000 x 3 =1,20,000/-
9.	Total	Rs.23,87,941/-	Rs.31,51,816/-

¶29

Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.23,87,941/- awarded by the Claims

¶30

-4-

¶31

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.31,51,816/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.23,87,941/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.7,63,875/- The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of award shall remain intact.

¶32