Tulsi Ram Karsh Vs Babulal Yadav

1 - Babulal Yadav S/o Santram Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Kachanda, P.S. And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10 G. 1043)

¶11

2 - Gajanand Sahu S/o Jyoti Lal Sahu R/o Thana Chowk, Chhapora Road, Dabhra, P.S. And Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G 10 G. 1043)

¶12

3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Plot No. 1 C-8, A.C. 1 And C-2, First Floor, Infront Of Nakoda Jewelers, Nagar Nigam Smriti Garden Niharika Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10 G. 1043)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellants/Claimants	:	Ms. Nita Choubey, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 & 2/	:	None appeared, though served
For Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company	:	Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

¶16

24/11/2025

¶17

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the

¶18

2

¶19

award passed by the learned II^nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 14/2023 dated 25.01.2024, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.11,10,436/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Raju Karsh.

¶20

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 28.02.2023 the deceased, namely – Raju Karsh, had gone from Village Thathari to Ratanpur-Silli for attending marriage in a offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. CG-10/G-1043 which was being driven by respondent No. 1 namely Babulal Yadav, owned by respondent No. 2 namely Gajanand Sahu and insured with respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, from where on 01.03.2023 they were returning, respondent No. 1 driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and turned it turtle, as a result thereof, Raju Karsh sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment.

¶21

Ms. Nita Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would argue that on 28.02.2023 deceased- Raju Karsh had gone from Village Thathari to Ratanpur-Silli for attending marriage in a Bus bearing registration No. CG-10-G/1043. On 01.03.2023 while they were returning, the driver of the offending Bus drove it rashly and negligently and turned it turtle, resultantly the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. She would submit that the claimants, who are parents of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein they pleaded that at the time time of accident, the age of the deceased was 30 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as

¶22

3

¶23

he was a carpenter. She would contend that the claimants claimed a sum of Rs.30,42,000/-.

¶24

Ms. Nita Choubey would further submit that respondent No.2 filed written statement and denied the contents of claim petition. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company filed its reply and took a plea that the offending vehicle was being driven in absence of mandatory documents. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter an award was passed. She would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased Rs.7,000/- which is at lower side. She would submit that the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labour in the month March, 2023 was Rs.10,220/-. She would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to one of the claimant. She would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶25

On other hand, Mr. G.V.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would oppose. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would contend that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased, therefore, the appeal filed by them deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection.

¶27

The claimants pleaded that the deceased was a carpenter and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but they failed to prove this fact, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix while assessing the income of the deceased.

¶28

4

¶29

The minimum wages admissible to unskilled labour in the month of March 2023 was Rs.10,220/- and this figure should have been taken by the learned Claims Tribunal into consideration while assessing notional monthly income of the deceased. Further the learned Claims Tribunal should have awarded Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants, but a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded for loss of consortium to one of the claimant and it requires reconsideration.

¶30

Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 ; Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. , reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors ., reported in (2018)

¶31

18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:-

¶32

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income as per minimum wages	Rs.7,000/- per month	Rs.10,220/-
2.	Future prospect 40%	Rs.2,800 + Rs.7,000/- = Rs.9,800/-	Rs.4,088 + Rs.10,220/- = Rs.14,308/-
3.	Deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses	Rs.9,800 – Rs.4,900= Rs.4,900/- per month	Rs.14,308 – 7,154 = Rs.7,154/- per month
4.	Per month Income of the deceased	Rs.4,900/-	Rs.7,154/-
5.	Annual Income of the deceased	Rs.4,900/- x 12 = Rs.58,800/- per annum	Rs.7,154 x 12 = Rs.85,848/- per annum
6.	Multiplier of 17	Rs.58,800/- x 17 = Rs.9,99,600/-	Rs.85,848/- x 17 = Rs.14,59,416/-
7.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
8.	Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-

¶33

5

¶34

9.	Loss of Consortium claimants	Filial to the	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.80,000/-
10.	Medical Exp	enses	Rs.40,836/-	Rs.40,836/-
		Total :	Rs.11,10,436/-	Rs.16,10,252/-

¶35

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.11,10,436/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.16,10,252/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.11,10,436/- , the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,99,816/- . The concerned respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶36

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶39

vatti

Tulsi Ram Karsh v. Babulal Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsi Ram Karsh v. Babulal Yadav

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

Manish Kumar Sahu Vs Smt. Urmila Sahu

Nestor Vs Dular

Subhadra and Others Vs Bhupendra and Others

Sirimati Vs Pawan Singh

United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs Smt. Chanda Bai Urao

Jayashanti Vs Kailash Rathiya