Sangeeta Dhruw Vs Yashwant Kumar Sahu

1.Yashwant Kumar Sahu S/o Omkar Ram Sahu Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village - Basin, Thana - Fingeshwar, District - Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh, Pin Code No. 493992 (Driver Cum Owner Of Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G.04/K.Q./2944).

¶17

2

¶18

MAC No. 461 of 2023

¶19

2.H.D.F.C. Ergro General Insurance Company Limited, Address - Chawala Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No.

¶20

C.G.04/K.Q./2944).

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

For Appellants :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate.

¶23

For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Harshmader Rastogi, Advocate.

¶24

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶25

Judgment On Board

¶26

04.12.2025

¶27

1.This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 140/2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of 12,98,080/-₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Kirtan Kumar Dhruw.

¶28

3

¶29

MAC No. 461 of 2023

¶30

2.Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as ₹8,600/- per month which should be 10,710/- as₹ per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh and also under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be enhanced, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶31

Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.2, would submit that the appellant has failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence and also the age of the deceased,

¶32

4

¶33

MAC No. 461 of 2023

¶34

hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased persons on notional basis.

¶35

The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the records

¶37

meticulously.

¶38

Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be 8,600/-, however, in₹ the opinion of this Court, as per the

¶39

Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued

¶40

by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be ₹10,710/- (as per minimum

¶41

wages prescribed at relevant time) who was a skilled labout and ₹1,28,520/- per annum.

¶42

Moreover, under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium the amount is

¶43

also liable to be enhanced and awarded, as

¶44

5

¶45

MAC No. 461 of 2023

¶46

such, the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced.

¶47

6.Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors 2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3, this Court is computing the

¶48

compensation as below:-

¶49

Sr.	Heads	Compensation	Compensation
No.		awarded by the Tribunal	awarded by Court	this
1.	Income	₹8,600 x 12 =₹ 1,03,200/-	₹10,710 x 1,28,520/- ₹	12 =
2.	Future prospect	(+)40% = 41,280/- ₹ total income =₹ 1,44,480/-	(+) 40% = 51 ₹ total income 1,79,928/-	,408/- =₹
3.	Deduction	(-) ¼ = 36,120/- ₹ ₹1,44,480–36,120= 1,08,360/- ₹ [wrongly calculated by Claims Tribunal = 72,240/-] ₹	(-) ¼ = 44,9 ₹ ₹1,79,928–44, 1,34,946/- ₹ income)	82/- 982= (total
4.	Multiplier	(x) 17 = 18,42,120/- ₹ [wrongly calculated by Claims Tribunal = 12,28,080] ₹	(x) 17 22,94,082/- ₹	=

¶50

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶51

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶52

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶53

6

¶54

MAC No. 461 of 2023

¶55

5.	Loss of Estate	15,000/- ₹	16,500/- ₹
6.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/- ₹	16,500/- ₹
7.	Spousal Consortium	40,000/- ₹	44,000/- ₹
8.	Filial Consortium	Nil	88,000/- ₹
9.	Parental consortium	Nil	44,000/- ₹
	Total	19,12,120/- ₹ *[wrongly awarded* by *the* *Claims* *Tribunal* *12,98,080/-]* ₹	25,03,082 ₹ /-

¶56

7.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹12,98,080/[wrongly] awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹25,03,082/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹12,98,080/- , the appellants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹12,05,002/- . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its

¶57

7

¶58

MAC No. 461 of 2023

¶59

realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶60

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

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge