Jayashanti Vs Kailash Rathiya

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.11.25 14:39:59 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:56969

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 936 of 2024

¶7

Jayashanti W/o Late Ram Charan Rathia Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil- Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Smt. Ram Kunwar W/o Vishal Rathia Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil- Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Ram Say S/o Vishlal Rathiya Aged About 15 Years (Now 19 Years), R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil- Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellant(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

Kailash Rathiya S/o Raj Kumar Rathia Aged About 20 Years R/o Madwani, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, (Driver Of Offending Vehicle)

¶13

Ram Kumar Rathiya S/o Lacchhan Singh R/o Village Madwani, TahsilKartala, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle)

¶14

3. New India Insurance Company Limited Plot No. 317, Tara Complex, Near Main Branch, S.B.I., T.P. Nagar, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle)

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellants/Claimants : Mrs. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

24.11.2025

¶19

With the consent of the parties matter is heard finally.

¶20

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned 1 st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba in Claim Case No. 108/2018 dated 21.08.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 17,28,104/- with interest at the rate of 6% per anum on account of

¶21

2

¶22

death of Ram Charan Rathia.

¶23

Mrs. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that Ram Charan Rathia met with an accident on 06.12.2017 and succumbed to death on account of injuries sustained. She would further submit that wife, parents and minor brother filed a claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 22 years and earning Rs. 500/- per day as he was a Mason. She would also submit that learned Tribunal has considered notional monthly income of the deceased Rs. 8,150/- which is at lower side. She would contend that in absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded consortium to one of the claimants out of four. She would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶24

On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate appearing for the Insurance company would oppose. He would submit that the learned tribunal has passed just and proper compensation.

¶25

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

¶26

The deceased met with an accident on 06.12.2017 when he was dashed by offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 12 AL 7216, resultantly, he sustained injuries and died during course of treatment on 09.12.2017. It is pleaded that the deceased was a Mason, but the claimant could not lead evidence to prove this fact, and therefore, the learned Tribunal applied minimum wages matrix to assess the income part of the deceased. The minimum wages admissible to unskilled labourer in the month of December, 2017 was Rs. 7,930/-, whereas the learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased Rs. 8,190/-. Thus, it could

¶27

3

¶28

not be said that the learned Tribunal assessed the income at lower side; therefore, the contention made by Mrs. Patel is not justifiable.

¶29

With regard to loss of consortium, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to one of the claimants out of four. However, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , all claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- each under this head. Accordingly, the remaining three claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, along with an additional 20% amount.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:-

¶31

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 8,190x12 = Rs. 98,280/-	Rs. 8,190x12 = Rs. 98,280/-
2.	Future Prospect	(40%) = Rs. 39,312/-	(40%) = Rs. 39,312/-
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/3 Rs. 45,864/-	(-) 1/3 Rs. 45,864/-
		Rs. 91,728/-	Rs. 91,728/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 18 = Rs. 16,51,104/-	(x) 18 = Rs. 16,51,104/-

¶32

4

¶33

5.	Loss of Estate		Rs. 16,500/-
6.	Funeral expenses		Rs. 16,500/-
7.	Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 1)	Rs. 77,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-
8.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 2)		Rs. 48,000/-
9.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 3)		Rs. 48,000/-
10.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 4)		Rs. 48,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 17,28,104/-	Rs. 18,72,104/-

¶34

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 17,28,104/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 18,72,104 / - . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 17,28,104 / -, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%. The respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal . Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶35

10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed.

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

$iddhant

Jayashanti v. Kailash Rathiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayashanti v. Kailash Rathiya

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

Tulsi Ram Karsh Vs Babulal Yadav

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