Smt. Balwanti Tirkey Vs Satish Kashyap

¶1

1

2026:CGHC:17521

ASHOK SAHU

NAFR

Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.04.17 10:15:14 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 132 of 2019

¶8

1 - Smt. Balwanti Tirkey, D/o. Late Ranjit Tirkey, Aged About 20 Years, R/o. Village Jhargaon, Post Gholeng, Tahsil And District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Minor Nirjala Tirkey, D/o. Late Ranjit Tirkey, Aged About 1 Year, Minor Through Next Friend, R/o. Village Jhargaon, Post Gholeng, Tahsil And District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Mahinder Tirkey, S/o. Late Amasu Tirkey, Aged About 49 Years, R/o. Village Jhargaon, Post Gholeng, Tahsil And District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Smt. Premdani Tirkey, W/o. Mahinder Tirkey, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village Jhargaon, Post Gholeng, Tahsil And District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5 - Rakesh Tirkey, S/o. Mahinder Tirkey, Aged About 20 Years, R/o. Village Jhargaon, Post Gholeng, Tahsil And District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

6 - Minor Sanjit Tirkey, S/o. Mahinder Tirkey, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Next Friend, R/o. Village Jhargaon, Post Gholeng, Tahsil And District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

7 - Minor Saraswati Tirkey, D/o. Mahinder Tirkey, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through Next Friend, R/o. Village Jhargaon, Post Gholeng, Tahsil And District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2

¶16

8 - Minor Sanjana Tirkey, D/o. Mahinder Tirkey, Aged About 14 Years, Minor Through Next Friend, R/o. Village Jhargaon, Post Gholeng, Tahsil And District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

9 - Minor Sasita Tirkey, D/o. Mahinder Tirkey, Aged About 13 Years, Minor Through Next Friend, R/o. Village Jhargaon, Post Gholeng, Tahsil And District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

versus

¶19

1 - Satish Kashyap, W/o. Shri Jyotindranath, R/o. Village - Hutar Jutjora, District - Khunti, Jharkhand.

¶20

2 - Vijay Urao, S/o. Mahindar Urao, Aged About 36 Years, Occupation - Driver, R/o. Village - Bhandara, Ward No. 6, Pandara, Police Station - Pandara, District - Lohardaga, Jharkhand.

¶21

3 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Local Branch Office, Pathalgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

For Appellants	: Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate
For Respondent	: Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Advocate on behalf of
No.3	Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate

¶24

(Single Bench)

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶26

Judgment on Board

¶27

16.04.2026

¶28

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated

¶29

10.10.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims

¶30

3

¶31

Tribunal (F.T.C) Jashpur, in Claim Case No.29/2018, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,69,600/- has been awarded to the claimants for the death of Ranjit Tirkey, aged about 23 years, at the time of accident.

¶32

2. Appellants, who are wife, daughter, father, mother, brothers and sisters, have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,25,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased Ranjit Tirkey, aged about 23 years, was sole bread earner of the family and on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties.

¶33

3. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Ranjit Tirkey died in the accident arising out of rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.3 herein. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved and after calculating the amount of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 12,69,600/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application.

¶34

4

¶35

4. Mr. Divyanand Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded very meager amount, as the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased to be Rs.5,000/- per month, which should be Rs. 7,930/per month. as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. T herefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal may be enhanced suitably.

¶36

5. Mr. Raghvendra Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/ insurance company, would submit that the appellants have failed to prove the exact income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the learned Claims Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference.

¶37

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

¶38

7. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Ranjit Tirkey to be Rs. 5,000/- per month, however, in the

¶39

5

¶40

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 Rs. 7,930/- per month. 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 Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors 2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3, this Court is re-computing the compensation as

¶41

below:-

¶42

Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
Income as per minimum wages	Rs. 5000 per month i.e. Rs. 5000 x 12 = Rs. 60,000/- per annum	Rs. 7,930 per month i.e. Rs. 7,930 x 12 = Rs. 95,160/- per annum
Add future prospects @ 40%	Rs. 60,000 + Rs. 24,000 = Rs. 84,000/-	Rs. 95,160 + Rs. 38,064 = Rs. 1,33,224/-
Deduction of 1/5 towards personal expenses	Rs. 84,000 – 16,800 = Rs.67,200/-	Rs. 1,33,224 – 26,645 = Rs. 1,06,580/-
Multiplier of 18	Rs. 67,200 x 18 = Rs. 12,09,600/-	Rs. 1,06,580 x 18 = Rs. 19,18,440/-
Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-

¶43

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶44

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶45

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶46

6

¶47

Loss of consortium	Rs. 30,000/-	Rs. 1,76,000
		(Appellant No.1 to 4)
Total	Rs. 12,69,600/-	Rs. 21,24,440/-

¶48

8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 12,69,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 21,24,440/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 12,69,600/- already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 8,54,840/- . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days. 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.

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶51

Ashok

Smt. Balwanti Tirkey v. Satish Kashyap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Balwanti Tirkey v. Satish Kashyap

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

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Savita Sandilya

Bablu Dewangan Vs Vifal @ Prakash Vishwakarma

Rameshwari Markhandey Vs Smt. Dropati Markhandey

Agam Nirmalkar Vs Munnalal Patel

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Kunwar Singh Keshar

Meena Banjare Vs Ramprasad