Smt. Shanti Harijan Vs Chaitanya Kumbhar

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.06 16:38:45 +0530

1

2026:CGHC:6736

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1139 of 2023

¶7

1. Smt. Shanti Harijan W/o Late Shyamlal Harijan Aged About 45 Years R/o - Shanti Nagar, Bishoram Kadamberi, District : Nuapada *, Orissa

¶8

2. Santosh Harijan S/o Late Shyamlal Harijan Aged About 28 Years R/o - Shanti Nagar, Bishoram Kadamberi, District : Nuapada *, Orissa

¶9

3. Dayalal Harijan S/o Late Shyamlal Harijan Aged About 24 Years R/o - Shanti Nagar, Bishoram Kadamberi, District : Nuapada *, Orissa

¶10

4. Manish Harijan S/o Late Shyamlal Harijan Aged About 22 Years R/o - Shanti Nagar, Bishoram Kadamberi, District : Nuapada *, Orissa

¶11

5. Motin Harijan D/o Late Shyamlal Harijan Aged About 20 Years R/o - Shanti Nagar, Bishoram Kadamberi, District : Nuapada *, Orissa ... Appellant(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

1. Chaitanya Kumbhar S/o Mukteshwar Kumbhar Aged About 31 Years R/o Sirtol, Post, Police Station And District- Nuapada (Odisha)

¶14

2. Thana Sunder Pradhan S/o Shri Lohit Kishore Pradhan R/o - 118, Mandosil, Paikamal, Sambalpur, District - Sambalpur (Odisha) (Non-Applicant No. 2)

¶15

3. The Tata Aig Generalinsurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager/legal Officer, Branch Office, First Floor, 106,7, Walfort Ozon, Bilaspur Road, Nera Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) (Non-Applicant No. 3)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

2

¶18

For Appellants	: Ms. Pooja Yadav, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Adv.
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Rahul Singh Thakur, Adv. on
	behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv.

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶20

Judgment On Board

¶21

6.2.2026

¶22

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, Raipur in Claim Case No. 1019/2021 dated 2.2.2023 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 10,10,000/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Shyamlal Harijan.

¶23

2) Facts of the present case are that on 20.6.2021 at about 3:00 pm, Shyamlal was sitting beside road when offending vehicle – Car bearing registration No. OD-17-T-7117 being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed him. In accident, Shyamlal sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to hospital. Claimants, who are the widow and children of deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000/-. They pleaded that the deceased was aged 49 years and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month working as laborer. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed.

¶24

3

¶25

3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of deceased to be Rs. 5,000/per month which is not in consonance with the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. She further submits that learned Tribunal has awarded meager amounts under conventional heads. She prays to modify the award accordingly.

¶26

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and same does not warrant any interference.

¶27

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

¶28

6) Admittedly, claimants have not placed on record any document to demonstrate the monthly income of deceased. However, learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- whereas according to the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, minimum wages payable to an unskilled laborer in June, 2021 was Rs. 9,200/- per month and learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure.

¶29

7) Perusal of award would reveal that learned Tribunal has deducted 1/5 dependency towards personal expenses of deceased looking to number of dependents ; applied multiplier of 13 looking to age

¶30

4

¶31

of deceased ; granted 25% towards future prospect. Also, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate ; Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to each of the claimants separately. In my opinion, assessment under these heads do not require any interference.

¶32

8) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is re-

¶33

computing the compensation as below:

¶34

Sr. No .	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Annual Income	Rs. 60,000/- (@Rs. 5,000 pm)	Rs. 1,10,400/- (@Rs. 9,200 pm)
2.	Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses	Rs. 48,000/- (@1/5)	Rs. 88,320/- (@1/5)
3.	Annual Income after applying Multiplier	Rs. 6,24,000/- (@13)	Rs. 11,48,160/- (@13)
4.	Annual Income adding Future Prospect	Rs. 7,80,000/- (@25%)	Rs. 14,35,200/- (@25%)
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 2,00,000/-	Rs. 2,00,000/-
		(wife and four children)	(wife and four children)
	TOTAL	Rs. 10,10,000/-	Rs. 16,65,200/-

¶35

9) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,10,000/-

¶36

awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 16,65,200/- .

¶37

5

¶38

Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,55,200/- . 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.

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶42

A j i n k y a

Smt. Shanti Harijan v. Chaitanya Kumbhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanti Harijan v. Chaitanya Kumbhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Sahu Vs Himanshu Sharma

Rajaram Yadav Vs Sanjay sharma

Chandrashekhar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ratna Bai Vs Gajanand (Died) through Lrs Narayan Patel

Ajay Kumar Nirmalkar Vs Mahadev Ajgalle

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Sushma Gilhare