Bhagirathi Vs Thakur Prasad Singar

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.14 11:33:41 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:1842

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 106 of 2023

¶6

Bhagirathi S/o Barjan Ram Aged About 46 Years Caste Nagwanshi, R/o Village Bataikela, Tahsil Kansabel, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Ratilo W/o Bhagirathi Aged About 44 Years Caste Nagwanshi, R/o Village Bataikela, Tahsil Kansabel, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Sevti D/o Bhagirathi Aged About 19 Years Caste Nagwanshi, R/o Village Bataikela, Tahsil Kansabel, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Minor Majhino D/o Bhagirathi Aged About 15 Years Through Next Friend Guardian Mother Ratilo, W/o Bhagirathi, Caste Nagwanshi, R/o Village Bataikela, Tahsil Kansabel, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Minor Sajani @ Sajhino D/o Bhagirathi Aged About 14 Years Through Next Friend Guardian Mother Ratilo, W/o Bhagirathi, Caste Nagwanshi, R/o Village Bataikela, Tahsil Kansabel, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Minor Rekha D/o Bhaigrathi Aged About 10 Years Through Next Friend Guardian Mother Ratilo, W/o Bhagirathi, Caste Nagwanshi, R/o Village Bataikela, Tahsil Kansabel, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Appellant(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

Thakur Prasad Singar S/o Ghansi Ram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Loker (Jamragi), Police Station- Bagbahar, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

Pratap Singh S/o Karan Singh Aged About 40 Years Caste- Khairwar, R/o Village Mahadevdand, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate For respondents No. 1 & 2 : None.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶20

13.01.2026

¶21

Heard on admission.

¶22

2

¶23

With the consent of the parties matter is heard finally.

¶24

The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur in Claim Case No. 68/2021 dated 14.07.2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,77,200/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of death of Sukhlal in motor accident.

¶25

Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate would submit that on 10.02.2021 Sukhlal was going to village Lalitpur and when he reached near village Ghoghar, the driver of the offending Mahindra XUV500 bearing registration No. CG 14 ME 7083 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorbike of the deceased, resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death.

¶26

Mr. Sahu would submit that the deceased was a bachelor aged about 23 years working as a Mason, earing Rs. 15,000/- per month. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 6,000/- per month, which is at lower side. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has not granted proper compensation for loss of consortium to claimants No. 2 to 6. He would pray to enhance the compensation.

¶27

On the other hand, Mr. Dubey would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sahu. He would submit that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased and the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation.

¶28

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

¶29

The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 6,000/per month. The claimant could not prove the fact that the deceased was a Mason earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. In absence of evidence, the

¶30

3

¶31

learned Tribunal should have treated the deceased an unskilled labourer. The minimum wages admissible to unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2021 was Rs. 8,960/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while assessing income of the deceased. Further the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 20,000 – Rs. 20,000/- to the claimants No. 2 to 6 for loss of consortium, which is also at lower side.

¶32

Taking into consideration the above-discussed fact the compensation requires revisitation and same is being revisited herein below :-

¶33

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 6,000 x12 = Rs. 72,000/-	Rs. 8,960 x12 = Rs. 1,07,520/-
2.	Future Prospect	(40%) = 28,800/-	(40%) = Rs. 43,008/-
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/2 Rs. 50,400/- Rs. 50,400/-	(-) 1/2 Rs. 72,264/- Rs. 75,264/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 18 = Rs. 9,07,200/-	(x) 18 = Rs. 13,54,752/-
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000	Rs. 15,000
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
7.	Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 1)		Rs. 40,000/-
8.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 2)		Rs. 40,000/-
9.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 3)	Rs. 1,70,000/-	Rs. 40,000/-
10.	Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 4)		Rs. 40,000/-
11.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 5)		Rs. 40,000/-
12.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 6)		Rs. 40,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 10,77,200/-	Rs. 16,24,752/-

¶34

4

¶35

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 10,77,200/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 16,24,752 / - . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 10,77,200 / -, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,47,552 /-. The Insurance Company 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.

¶36

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

¶37

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

$iddhant

Bhagirathi v. Thakur Prasad Singar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirathi v. Thakur Prasad Singar

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

Assistant Engineer and Others Vs Daulatram Sahu and Another

Kunjal Prasad Rajwade Vs Lalita Gupta

Santosh Sarthi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Pramila Bai Vs Sonuram Netam

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Tileshwar Prasad

Tirath Deshmukh Vs Balram Tandan