Aarti Vs Bhagwan Singh

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

2025:CGHC:55853

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 64 of 2025

¶7

1 - Aarti Wd/o Late Babulal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kot, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Minor Kumari Riya Singh D/o Late Babulal Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Arti (Appellant No. 1), R/o Village Kot, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Minor Arvind Singh S/o Late Babulal Aged About 2 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Arti (Appellant No. 1), R/o Village Kot, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4 - Harmaniya W/o Bhukhsai Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kot, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5 - Bhukhsai S/o Ramnath Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kot, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Bhagwan Singh S/o Narendra Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Tiwaragudi, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Tractor No. Cg - 29/ Af - 3956)

¶15

2 - Manijar Yadav S/o Ranjeet Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Barhol, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Tractor No. Cg - 29/ Af - 3956)

¶16

2

¶17

3 - Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through Chief Branch Manager, Nearby I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Tractor No. Cg - 29/ Af - 3956)

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellants : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondents : None though served.

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

17.11.2025

¶23

The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 4.10.2024, passed in Claim Case No.145 of 2023 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.15,83,400/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Babulal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that on 25.11.2022, the motorcycle of Babulal was dashed by the driver of Mahendra Tractor bearing registration No.C.G.29AF-3956, resultantly he sustained injuries and died during the course of treatment. He would contend that the claimants, who are widow, two minor children and parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 28 years and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased Rs.7,000/- per month, which is at lower side. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not

¶25

3

¶26

awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the children and parents of the deceased. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶27

Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the Insurance Company.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 28 years. In the absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix to assess the notional income of the deceased. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of November, 2022 was Rs.10,220/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken into consideration that figure while computing the compensation. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the children and parents of the deceased.

¶30

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below:

¶31

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 7,000 x 12 = Rs. 84,000/-	Rs. 10,220 x 12 = Rs. 1,22,640/-
2.	Future Prospect	40% - 33,600/- (84,000 + 33,600 = 1,17,600/-)	40% - 49,056/- (1,22,640 + 49,056 = 1,71,696/-)
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/4th (29,400/-) (1,17,600 – 29,400 = 88,200/-	(-) 1/4th (42,924/-) (Rs.1,71,696-42,924) = Rs. 1,28,772/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 17 = Rs. (88,200 x 17 = 14,99,400/-)	(x) 17 = Rs. (1,28,772 x 17 = 21,89,124/-)
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 18,000/-	Rs. 18,000/-

¶32

4

¶33

6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 18,000/-	Rs. 18,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 48,000/-	Rs. 48,000 + (48,000 x 4) = 2,40,000/- (to children & parents)
	TOTAL	Rs. 15,83,400/-	Rs. 24,65,124/-

¶34

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.15,83,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.24,65,124/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.15,83,400/- , the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.8,81,724/- . 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 @ 6% 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.

¶35

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

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶38

Judge

¶39

Nimmi

Aarti v. Bhagwan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarti v. Bhagwan Singh

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

Smt. Buchki Baghel Vs Jogaram Kodopi

Mayavati Gaharvariya Vs Rajendra Kumar Dubey

Sundri Bai Pradhan Vs Anuret Dhnuhar Urf Anuresh Kumar

Shivprasad Vs Dinesh Lanjhiyana

Jagdish Prasad Vs Ankita Khalkho

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Lalbaran