Nafeeza Khan Vs Dularam Bareth

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

REKHA SINGH

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 646 of 2024

¶6

1 - Nafeeza Khan W/o Shri Late Chheda Khan Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No.06, Ghoghari, P.S. Dabhra, Tahsil Malkharauda, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Dularam Bareth S/o Dileshwar Bareth Aged About 36 Years R/o Thakur Pali, Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup Bearing Registration No. C.G. 11 B.E. 2883)

¶10

2 - Smt. Asha Sahu W/o Manoj Sahu Krishna Mandir, Beech Basti Dabhra, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup Bearing Registration No. C.G. 11 B.E. 2883)

¶11

3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Building No. 9/1, Second Floor, Behind Khandelwal Motors, Adjoning Tressar, Iceland Mall M.G. Road Indore (Madhya Pradesh) (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup Bearing Registration No. C.G. 11 B.E. 2883)

¶12

	... Respondents
For Appellant/Claimant For Respondent No.3	: Ms. Neeta Choubey, Advocate : Ms. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv.
For respondents No.1 & 2	: None appears though served

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

04.11.2025

¶15

1. Heard.

¶16

1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Second

¶17

-2-

¶18

Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District JanjgirChampa (C.G.) in Claim Case No.4/2023 dated 06.01.2024 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.11,28,400/with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Juned Khan.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the on 11.12.2022, when Juned Khan was going to Chhapora, driver of a pick-up bearing registration No.C.G.11B.E.2883 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed him, consequently, he died on the spot. She would further submit that at the time of accident, his age was 18 years; he was bachelor and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. She would contend that the mother of the deceased has filed a claim application before the learned Tribunal. She would further contend that the learned Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased Rs.7000/- per month which is at lower side looking to the minimum wages matrix. She would fairly submit that on other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. She would pray to modify the award passed by the learned Tribunal accordingly.

¶20

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Dubey. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. He would further submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

-3-

¶22

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

¶23

1. The age of the deceased was 18 years and he was running a small hotel. The claimant could not lead evidence to establish fixed income of the deceased and therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed it Rs.7,000/per month which is at lower side looking to the minimum wages matrix. According to the minimum wages matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, minimum wages admissible to unskilled labourer in the month of December, 2022 was Rs.10,220/- and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration that figure.

¶24

1. On the other heads, learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation.

¶25

1. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below:

¶26

Sr.No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs.7000 x12 = Rs. 84,000/-	Rs.10,220 x 12 = Rs. 1,22,640/-
2.	Future Prospect	40% i.e. Rs.33,600/-	40% i.e. Rs.49,056/-
		= Rs.1,17,600/-	= Rs.1,71,696/-
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/2 i.e. = Rs.58,800/-	(-) 1/2 i.e.= Rs.85,848/-

¶27

-4-

¶28

4.	Multiplier	(x) 18 = Rs. 10,58,400/-	(x) 18 =Rs. 15,45,264/-
5.	Loss of Consortium	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.40,000/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
7.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
8.	Total	Rs. 11,28,400/-	Rs. 16,15,264/-

¶29

1. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.11,28,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.16,15,264/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.11,28,400/-, the appellant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,86,864/- . 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.

¶30

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

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

Rekha

Nafeeza Khan v. Dularam Bareth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nafeeza Khan v. Dularam Bareth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Neelima Mishra

Subodh Mishra, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Kumar Ambast Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kavita Vs Fuleshwar Rajwade

Rajkumar Tengwar Vs Jagmohan Pradhan

Katwaru Ram Vs Fuleshwar Rajwade