Ramadhin Sahu Vs Avinash Sharma

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 389 of 2024

¶5

1 - Ramadhin Sahu S/o Dukhuram Sahu, Aged About 71 Years (Father Of Deceased) R/o Bajrang Chowk, Gokulpur, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Gokulpur, Dhamtari Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶6

2 - Smt. Rameshwari Sahu, W/o Ramadhin Sahu, Aged About 69 Years (Mother Of Deceased) R/o Bajrang Chowk, Gokulpur, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Gokulpur, Dhamtari Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Claimants

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Avinash Sharma S/o Late Vinod Sharma, Aged About 22 Years Village Sungera P.S. Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Rudri Sichai Colony H.No. A-111, P.S. Rudri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Car No. Up 64 L6957)

¶10

2 - Smt. Neha Sharma, W/o Narayan Prasad, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bhotha, P.S. Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Rudir Sichai Colony, H. No. A-111, P.S. - Rudri District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Car No. Up 64 L 6957)

¶11

3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Address Above Indian Bank Bastar Road Dhamtari Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of Car No. Up 64 L 6957) ... Respondents

¶12

For appellants/claimants : Ms. Yamini Kaser, Advocate holding the brief of Mr.HAPS Bhatia, Advocate For respondent/Insurance Company : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

18.11.2025

¶15

1. Heard on I.A.No.1, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal.

¶16

1. Ms. Kaser, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that this appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and there is delay of only 7 days in filing instant appeal. She

¶17

would further submit that the appellants/claimants have good case on merits and delay part has properly been explained. She would pray to allow the

¶18

-2-

¶19

application (I.A. No.1).

¶20

1. On the other hand, Mr.Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Kaser.

¶21

1. Having considered the submissions made by Ms. Kaser and the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed.

¶22

1. Delay of 7 days in filing instant appeal is hereby condoned.

¶23

1. Heard on admission.

¶24

1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No.198/2021 dated 09.11.2023, whereby, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.8,98,520/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Tameshwar Sahu @ Tameshwar Prasad Sahu.

¶25

1. Ms. Kaser, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act on account of death of Tameshwar Prasad Sahu, who was aged about 31 years on the date of accident i.e. on 19.10.2021. She would contend that the claimants pleaded income of the deceased Rs.700/- per day but the learned Tribunal assessed monthly income of deceased Rs.6068/- per month, which is on lower side. She would further contend that in absence of evidence, learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix to assess the income of the deceased. She would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- only for loss of consortium, whereas, number of dependents are two. She would fairly submit that on other heads, learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and thus, she

¶26

-3-

¶27

would pray to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

¶28

1. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Ms.Kaser. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. He would further submit that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

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

¶30

1. A perusal of the record would show that the learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased Rs.6068/- per month, which is on lower side. In absence of any evidence with regard to income of the deceased, learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of October, 2021 was Rs.9,200/- and the learned Tribunal should have considered that figure while computing the compensation. Further, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/only to the claimants for loss of consortium, whereas, according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , both claimants were entitled to get sum of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and same is being revisited

¶31

herein-below :

¶32

Sr.No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs.6068 x12 = Rs. 72,816/-	Rs.9,200 x 12 = Rs. 1,10,400/-
2.	Future Prospect	40% of 72,816 =29,126/-	40% of 1,10,400= 44,160/-
		72,816 + 29,126 = 1,01,942/-	1,10,400+44,160=1,56,560/-
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/2 of 1,01,942 = 50,971/-	(-) ½ of 1,56,560/-=78,280/-

¶33

-4-

¶34

4.	Multiplier	(x) 16= Rs. 16=8,15,536/-	50,971 x (x) 16 = 78,280/- x 16=12,52,480/-
5.	Loss of Consortium(for appellant No.1)	Rs.25,000/-	Rs.44,000/-
6.	Loss of Consortium(for appellant No.2)	Rs.25,000/-	Rs.44,000/-
7.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
8.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
9.	Total	Rs. 8,98,520/-	Rs. 13,57,480/-

¶35

12) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.8,98,520/- awarded

¶36

by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.13,57,480/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.8,98,520/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,58,960/- .The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions shall remain intact.

¶37

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

¶38

Rekha

Ramadhin Sahu v. Avinash Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramadhin Sahu v. Avinash Sharma

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

Aarti Vs Bhagwan Singh

Shivprasad Vs Dinesh Lanjhiyana

Jagdish Prasad Vs Ankita Khalkho

Mahesh Ram Vs Smt.Janki

Vivek Kathuriya Vs Khub Lal Sahu

Rameshar Bhardwaj Vs Himmatlal Sahu