Smt. Chandravati Patel Vs Vidyadhar Nayak

¶1

1

¶2

MAC No. 1290 of 2019

¶3

2026:CGHC:15410

¶4

Digitally ANKITKUMARSINGH signedbyANKITKUMAR SINGH

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 1290 of 2019

¶8

Smt. Chandravati Patel W/o Late Mukut Ram Patel, Aged About 45 Years, Occupation Housewife, R/o Danighati, Tahsil and Thana Baramkela, Presently R/o Panjri Plant Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Tekaram Patel S/o Late Mukut Ram Patel, Aged About 25 Years;

¶10

Motiram Patel S/o Mukut Ram Patel, Aged About 23 Years; Appellants No.2 & 3 are R/o Danighati, Tahsil and Thana Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Claimants).

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

Vidyadhar Nayak S/o Late Gangaram Nayak, By Occupation Driver R/o Bajar Para (Ward No. 10) Baramkela, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Non Claimant)

¶14

Ramkumar Nayak S/o Vidyadhar Nayak, By Occupation Owner Of Vehicle, R/o Bajar Para (Ward No. 10) Baramkela, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Non Claimant)

¶15

Branch Manager, Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Rama Trading Center First Floor, Opposite Sanjeev Plaza, Near Bus Stand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Non Claimant).

... Respondents

2

MAC No. 1290 of 2019

For Appellants	: Mr. Rohishek Verma, Advocate, appears on
	behalf of Mr. Anshuman Rabra, Advocate
For Respondent	:- Ms. Suchi Ramteke, Advocate, appears on
No.3	behalf of Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate.

¶20

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

¶21

02.04.2026

¶22

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 30.04.2019 passed by the 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 03/2019 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of ₹4,47,375/- as compensation along with interest for death of Mukut Ram Patel.

¶23

Mr. Rohishek Verma, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present cases. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased ₹4,500/- per month which should be ₹8,140/- per month as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would also submit that future prospect has not

¶24

3

¶25

MAC No. 1290 of 2019

¶26

been given to the claimants and also under the heads of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. T herefore, the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶27

Ms. Suchi Ramteke, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would submit oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the claimants and submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records meticulously.

¶29

Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be ₹4,500/- however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be ₹8,140/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time for unskilled labour) and ₹97,680/per annum. Furthermore, the claims Tribunal has awarded less amount under the heads of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal

¶30

4

¶31

MAC No. 1290 of 2019

¶32

which is also liable to be enhanced. As such, the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced.

¶33

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 Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court

¶34

is computing the compensation as below:-

¶35

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	₹4,500 x 12 = ₹ 54,000/-	₹8,140 x 12 = ₹97,680/-
2.	Future Prospect	NIL	(+) 10% = ₹9,768/-; Total = ₹97,680+9,768 = ₹1,07,448/-
3.	Deduction	(-) ¼ = ₹13,500/-; ₹54,000–13,500 = ₹40,500/-(total income)	(-) 1/3 = ₹35,816/-; ₹1,07,448-35,816= ₹71,632/-(total income)
4.	Multiplier	(x) 13 = ₹5,26,500/-	(x) 13 = ₹9,31,216/-
5.	Loss o Estate	f ₹15,000/-	₹18,000/-
6.	Funeral Expenses	₹15,000/-	₹18,000/-
7.	Consortium	₹40,000/-	₹44,000 x 3 = ₹1,32,000/-
8.	Award	₹5,96,500/-	₹10,99,216/-
9.	Deduction	(-) ¼ 1,49,125/-	(-) ¼ = ₹2,74,804/-
	Total	₹4,47,375/-	₹8,24,412/-

¶36

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶37

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶38

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶39

5

¶40

MAC No. 1290 of 2019

¶41

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹4,47,375/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹8,24,412/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹4,47,375/-, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹3,77,037/-. The concerned respondent is 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 of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @9% 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.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶44

Ankit

Smt. Chandravati Patel v. Vidyadhar Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chandravati Patel v. Vidyadhar Nayak

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

Ram Kuamr Sharma Vs Gyan Singh Chandra

Awadh Ram Sahu (Died) Through Lrs Vs Lakhan Lal Meshram

Shailesh Gupta Vs Ravindra Kumar Naag

Pawan Kumar Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramsan Vs Branch Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.

Vidyanand Patel Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (C.S.P.D.C.L.)