Smt. Parvati Vs Deepak Khairwar

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

2025:CGHC:56819

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 569 of 2024

¶7

1 - Smt. Parvati W/o Late Vishwanath Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Baksahi, P.S. Pali, District Korba, C.G.

¶8

2 - Ku. Parmeshwari D/o Late Vishwanath Yadav Aged About 17 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Parvati Appellant No. 1, R/o Village Baksahi, P.S. Pali, District Korba, C.G.

¶9

3 - Ku. Riteshwari D/o Late Vishwanath Yadav Aged About 8 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Parvati Appellant No. 1, R/o Village Baksahi, P.S. Pali, District Korba, C.G.

¶10

4 - Ku. Kaleshwari D/o Late Vishwanath Yadav Aged About 5 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Parvati Appellant No. 1, R/o Village Baksahi, P.S. Pali, District Korba, C.G.

¶11

5 - Purana Bai W/o Rameshar Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Baksahi, P.S. Pali, District Korba, C.G.

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Deepak Khairwar S/o Bharat Singh Khairwar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Chatuwabhauna, Post Kapot, Sendri Pali, P.S. Pali, District Korba, C.G...Driver Of Trailor No. C.G.-4c.V.-0511....

¶15

2 - M/s Jai Ambe Freight Carrier Proprietor Neeraj Kumar Dubey, R/o Block No. 11, T.P.Nagar, Rawanbhata, Raipur, Khamtarai, District Raipur, C.G...Owner Of Trailor No. C.G.-4c.V.-0511....

¶16

2

¶17

3 - Branch Manager The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Ramatrade Centre, 2nd Floor, Old Bus Stand, Infront Of Rajiv Plaza, P.S. Civil Line Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G...Insurer Of Trailor No. C.G.-4c.V.-0511....

¶18

	... Respondent(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants	------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate holding the brief of Shri A.L. Singraul, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3	: Shri Sourabh Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2	: None.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶20

21.11.2025

¶21

The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 22.11.2023, passed in Claim Case No.1588 of 2021 by the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.15,22,450/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of Vishwanath Yadav.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Vishwanath Yadav was a mason and was 45 years old at the time of accident. He was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. She would submit that on 13.8.2021 at around 9:30 pm, his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicle, a Trailer bearing registration No.C.G.-04-CV-0511 near Shiv temple, main road Pali. She would contend that the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,060/- per month, which is on lower side. She would submit that in absence of evidence with regard to income of the deceased, learned Tribunal

¶23

3

¶24

ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix to assess the income. She would fairly submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on conventional heads. She would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. She would contend that the claimants failed to lead evidence to prove the income of the deceased and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income at Rs.8,060/- per month. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶27

The claimants in the claim petition pleaded that the age of the deceased was 45 years and he was a mason by profession and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, in evidence, they failed to establish the fact that the deceased was a mason and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As there was no evidence with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix treating the deceased as an unskilled labourer. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of August, 2021 was Rs.9,460/- per month and the learned Tribunal should have taken this figure into account while computing the compensation. Thus, the compensation requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below:

¶28

Sr.	Heads	Compensation	Compensation awarded
No.		awarded by Tribunal	by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 8,060 x 12 = Rs.	Rs. 9,460 x 12 = Rs.

¶29

4

¶30

		96,720/-	1,13,520/-
2.	Future Prospect	25% - 24,180/- (96,720 + 24,180 = 1,20,900/-)	25% - 28,380/- (1,13,520 + 28,380 = 1,41,900/-)
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/4th (30,225/-) (1,20,900 – 30,225 = 90,675/-	(-) 1/4th (35,475/-) (Rs.1,41,900-35,475) = Rs. 1,06,425/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 14 = Rs. (90,675 x 14 = 12,69,450/-)	(x) 14 = Rs. (1,06,425 x 14 = 14,89,950/-)
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 44,000 + 1,32,000 + 44,000 = 2,20,000/- (wife, three children & mother)	Rs. 44,000 + 1,32,000 + 44,000 = 2,20,000/-(wife, three children & mother)
	TOTAL	Rs. 15,22,450/-	Rs. 17,42,950/-

¶31

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.15,22,450/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,42,950/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.15,22,450/- , the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,20,500/- . The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 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 realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶32

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

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶35

Judge

¶36

Nimmi

Smt. Parvati v. Deepak Khairwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Parvati v. Deepak Khairwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Sahu Vs Dharmendra Singh Meravi @ Bablu

Rahul Bhaskar Vs Sanjeev Thomas

Smt. Taramani Paikra Vs Shiva

Manish Kumar Sahu Vs Smt. Urmila Sahu

Nestor Vs Dular

Subhadra and Others Vs Bhupendra and Others