Partly allowed

Jawahar Lal v. Anil Kumar

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jan 2026MAC/1107/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents appealed enhancement of compensation for death of their minor daughter in a motorcycle-trailer accident. Applying Supreme Court precedent that a deceased minor's notional income must be assessed at skilled-labourer minimum wages, the Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 6,35,000 to Rs. 11,12,450.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 6,35,000 to Rs. 11,12,450; insurer directed to pay additional Rs. 4,77,450 within 60 days; award otherwise intact.

Jawahar Lal Vs Anil Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.01.06 16:14:00 +0530

2026:CGHC:343

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1107 of 2022

¶7

1. Jawahar Lal S/o Dasru Ram Diwakar Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Sonbarsa Police Station And Tahsil Balauda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. Santoshi Bai W/o Jawahar Lal Diwakar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Sonbarsa Police Station And Tahsil Balauda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1. Anil Kumar S/o Rajkumar Kenwat Aged About 29 Years R/o Village - Paunsara, Bazar Para, Ward No. - 17, Police Station - Koni, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (Driver Of The Vehicle)

¶12

2. Jasvindar Singh S/o Mahendra Singh Chhabda Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 03, Ward No. - 31, Rishi Colony, Lingiya - Deeh, Bilaspur Police Station - Sarkanda, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle)

¶13

3. Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Rama Trade Centre, 2nd Floor, Old Bus Stand, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur Police Station - Civil Line , Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellants	:	Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 & 2	:	Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3	:	Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Judgment On Board

¶18

¶19

5.1.2026

¶20

1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 1427/2019 dated 14.7.2022 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 6,35,000/- with interest @ 7.5% on account of death of Ku. Reshma Diwakar.

¶21

2) Facts of the present case are that on 15.11.2019 at about 4:30 pm, Ku. Reshma Diwakar was returning to her native village from Budgahan School on motorcycle as pillion rider along with one Veeru. When they reached Main Road, Panora, the offending vehicle – Trailer bearing registration No. CG-10-R-0701 being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle. In the accident, Ku. Reshma Diwakar sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Claimants, who are the parents of the deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,00,000/-. They pleaded that the deceased was aged 16 years and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month doing stitching and embroidery work. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed.

¶22

3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 30,000/- per annum which is at lower side. He further submits that

¶23

¶24

learned Tribunal ought to have treated the deceased to be skilled labourer as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel versus Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. 1 and Thangavel and others Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation 2 Limited . Although, he fairly submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation under conventional heads. He prays to modify the award accordingly.

¶25

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that learned Tribunal has considered the age of deceased to be 14 years 10 months and the deceased who was a student cannot be considered as skilled labourer. They further submit that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶27

6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) held that when a minor child suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, the child cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the

¶28

1 . 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871

¶29

2 . 2025 SCC Online SC 1649

¶30

¶31

child was not engaged in gainful employment. It is further held that in such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises, relevant para 9 is reproduced herein-below :-

¶32

“9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a wellenterenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a nonearning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very lease, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413, and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692. ”

¶33

¶34

7) In the matter of Thangavel (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is "no straightjacket formula" for assessing the notional income of a deceased child and the Courts must exercise flexibility and consider judicial precedents.

¶35

8) Admittedly, learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 30,000/- per annum whereas according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra), learned Tribunal should have treated the deceased to be skilled labourer and applied the applicable minimum wage matrix to assess the notional income of the deceased.

¶36

9) According to the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, minimum wages payable to a skilled laborer in November, 2019 was Rs. 10,305/- per month and learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. However, under conventional heads learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and same does not warrant any interference.

¶37

10) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:

¶38

Sr. No.		Heads		Compensation awarded by Tribunal	^{Compensation awarded} by this Court
1.	Annual	Income		Rs. 30,000/-	Rs. 1,23,660/-
					(@Rs. 10,305/- p.m.)
2.	Annual	Income	after	Rs. 4,50,000/-	Rs. 18,54,900/-

¶39

¶40

	applying Multiplier	(@15)	(@15)
3.	Annual Income after Deduction	NIL	Rs. 9,27,450/- (@50%)
4.	Future Prospects	Rs. 75,000/-	Rs. 75,000/-
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 80,000/- (two claimants)	Rs. 80,000/- (two claimants)
	TOTAL	Rs. 6,35,000/-	Rs. 11,12,450/-

¶41

11) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,35,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 11,12,450/- . Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,77,450/- . The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶44

A j i n k y a

Jawahar Lal v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawahar Lal v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Niharika Baghel Vs Mohammad Rauf Siddiqui

Smt. Hina Vs Bhajan Lal Desana

Smt. Kunti Bai Verma Vs Rajendra Kumar Verma (Died and Deleted)

Chhattisgarh Housing Board Vs Shreejikrupa Project

Kachru Ram Tekam Vs Gajendra Kumar Tulavi

(Deleted) Madhav Saw (Died) Through Lrs. Vs (Deleted) Rambha Devi