Lata Sahu Vs Vivek Kumar Dubey

All Caste Teli and are R/o Ward No.19 Near Hanuman Mandir, Sanjay Colony, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh..............(Claimants)

¶15

... Appellants

¶16

versus

¶17

1.Vivek Kumar Dubey S/o Vikash Dubey Aged About 26 Years, R/o Risda, Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.).............(Owner And Driver Of Vehicle Eon Bearing No. C.G.13-U-0193).

¶18

2

¶19

MAC No. 89 of 2023

¶20

2.Branch Manager, Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Raipur Ward No.25, (Guru Govind Singh Ward), Second Floor, Simran Towers Pandri Road, Office-In Front Of LIC Building Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Eon Bearing No. G.G. 13-U-0193).

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

For Appellants :- Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, Advocate.

¶23

For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate.

¶24

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board

¶25

05.12.2025

¶26

1.This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”)

¶27

has been preferred by the appellants/claimants

¶28

seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar-Bhatapara,

¶29

Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 28/2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of 19,06,100/-₹ as

¶30

3

¶31

MAC No. 89 of 2023

¶32

compensation along with interest for death of Sanjay Sahu.

¶33

2.Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, 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 ₹8,000/- per month which should be 9,200/- as₹ per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification

¶34

issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh and also under the head of loss of estate amount has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable

¶35

to be enhanced, t herefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶36

Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for

¶37

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

¶38

4

¶39

MAC No. 89 of 2023

¶40

evidence and also the age of the deceased, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased persons on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶41

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

¶42

meticulously.

¶43

Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be 8,800/-, however, in₹

¶44

the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued

¶45

by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be ₹9,200/- (as per minimum

¶46

wages prescribed at relevant time) and ₹1,10,400/- per annum. Moreover, under the

¶47

head of loss of estate amount is also liable to

¶48

be awarded, as such, the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced.

¶49

5

¶50

MAC No. 89 of 2023

¶51

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

¶52

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3, this Court is computing the

¶53

compensation as below:-

¶54

Sr.	Heads	Compensation		Compensation
No.		awarded by Tribunal	the	awarded by Court	this
1.	Income	₹8,000 x 12 96,000/-	=₹	₹9,200 x 1,10,400/- ₹	12 =
2.	Future prospect	(+)40% = 38, ₹ total income 1,34,400/-	400/- =₹	(+) 40% = 44 ₹ total income 1,54,560/-	,160/- =₹
3.	Deduction	(-) ¼ = 33,60 ₹ ₹1,34,400–33,6 1,00,800/- ₹	0/- 00=	(-) ¼ = 38,6 ₹ ₹1,54,560–38, 1,15,920/- ₹ income)	40/- 640= (total
4.	Multiplier	(x) 17 17,13,600/- ₹	=	(x) 17 19,70,640/- ₹	=
5.	Loss of Estate	NIL		16,500/- ₹
6.	Funeral Expenses	16,500/- ₹		16,500/- ₹
7.	Consortium	1,76,000/- ₹		1,76,000/- ₹
	Total	₹19,06,100/-		21,79,640 ₹ /-

¶55

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶56

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶57

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶58

6

¶59

MAC No. 89 of 2023

¶60

7.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹19,06,100/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹21,79,640/- .

¶61

Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹19,06,100/- , the appellants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹2,73,540/- . The concerned respondent is

¶62

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

¶63

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.

¶64

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

¶65

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶66

Ankit

Lata Sahu v. Vivek Kumar Dubey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lata Sahu v. Vivek Kumar Dubey

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

United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs Smt. Fuleshwari Dhiwar

Sunita Singh Vs Belal Khan

Sangeeta Dhruw Vs Yashwant Kumar Sahu

Aabda Begam Vs Sheikh Asalam

Smt. Khiro Dewangan Vs Onkar Prasad Yadav

Smt. Supriya Vishwas Vs Durgesh Sethiya