Smt. Rajim Sen Vs Chanak @ Chanakya Yadav

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:22117

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 1357 of 2022

¶5

1 - Smt. Rajim Sen W/o Shri Bhagwat Sen Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Akoli (Mandhar), Post Akoli, Thana Dharsiva, Tahsil Raipur (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2 - Bhagwat Sen S/o Late Firtu Ram Sen Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Akoli (Mandhar), Post Akoli, Thana Dharsiva, Tahsil Raipur (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Chanak @ Chanakya Yadav S/o Tiwari Yadav R/o Ward No.12 Damad Para, Village Akoli-2, Thana Dharsinwa (Owner Cum Driver), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company - Manager Chawla Complex 3rd Floor, Devendra Nagar, Main Road Sai Nagar Raipur (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

--- Respondents

¶11

For the appellant : Mr. Arjun Lal Singraul, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, Advocate

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

11/05/2026

¶15

2

¶16

1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the claimants challenging the award dated 21^st October, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. 617/2021. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 12,34,840/- as compensation to the claimants due to death of deceased Daulal Sen in an unfortunate accident which took place on 08.03.2021.

¶17

2 . As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the claimants are the parents of deceased . On 08.03.2021 in the evening deceased Daulal Sen was going from village Akoli to village Mandhar sitting as pillion rider of Motor-cycle C.G.04NJ-8222 driven by owner/respondent no.1 Chanak @ Chanakya Yadav. On the way, respondent no.1 while driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, hit a hand-cart and caused accident, due to which, deceased Daulal Sen suffered serious injuries on the back of his head and other parts of his body and went in coma. He died on 26.3.2021 while undergoing treatment in Hospital. The said vehicle was insured with respondent no.2/ Insurance company. The claimants being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs.28,50,000/- on various heads.

¶18

3. The learned claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record and the pleadings made in application, assessed the annual income of deceased to be Rs.93,600 (Rs.7800/- x 12); granted

¶19

3

¶20

40% future prospectus thereon, deducted one-half towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 17 and thus worked out the loss of dependency to be Rs.11,13,840/- Further more, Rs.1,21,000/- has been awarded on other heads. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 12,34,840/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing application till its realisation.

¶21

4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and needs enhancement. He further submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of deceased as Rs.24,000/- per month but the learned Claims Tribunal has only assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 7,800/- per month per month and awarded total compensation of Rs.12,34,840/including the amount of Rs. 1,21,000/- under other heads. He urged that the Tribunal erred in not assessing the proper monthly income of the deceased. He further submits that the Tribunal has also awarded lesser amount on other heads, therefore, this appeal may be allowed and amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced.

¶22

5 . None appeared on behalf of respondent no.1.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 supports the award and submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has granted just compensation which needs no interference.

¶24

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶25

8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.12,34,840/- awarded by the tribunal is just and proper compensation

¶26

4

¶27

in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶28

9. As regards the income of deceased, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased being barber by profession was earning Rs.800/- per day that is 24,000/- per month by running a saloon shop, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced. However, it cannot be said that the deceased was not at all earning anything from his work. Therefore in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, minimum wage rate structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc., specially the notification by the Labour Department for minimum wages, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs.8,960/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e., 08.03.2021. Thus the annual incomes comes to Rs. 1,07,520, per annum. So far as future prospects is concerned, as per the National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e.,43,008/-, the annual income would come to Rs. 1,50,528/-. 10. The deceased was 29 years of age and the claimants are parents of the deceased, so the deduction towards personal expenses would be 50% which comes to Rs. 75,264/- In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Suprme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC l2l and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of deceased, after applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency is worked out to Rs.12,79,488/-. Under the other heads,

¶29

5

¶30

the Triobunal has granted a total sum of Rs. 1,21,000/- i.e., Rs.16,500/- for loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- plus Rs.44,000/- for loss of consortium to both claimants which cannot be said to be on lower side. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 14,00,488/-. Thus this Court is recomputing the compensation in the following

¶31

manner :

¶32

1.	Total loss of dependency Rs.	12,79,488/-
2.	Loss of estate as awarded by Tribunal Rs.	16,500/-
3.	Funeral expenses as awarded by Tribunal Rs.	16,500/-
4.	Loss of consortium (Rs.44000 x 2) as awarded byTribunal Rs.	88,000/-
	Total Rs.	14,00,488/-

¶33

11. Thus the total compensation is recomputed to Rs14,00,488 from which after deduction of Rs. 12,34,840/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.1,65,648/-. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . The claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 1,65,648/in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realisation. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶34

12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶35

13. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in

¶36

6

¶37

writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of para-legal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area where the claimants reside.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge

¶40

Rao

Smt. Rajim Sen v. Chanak @ Chanakya Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajim Sen v. Chanak @ Chanakya Yadav

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

Dharam Prakash Toppo Vs Shivlal Tigga

Chinesh Khamhari @ Kunu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Banmali Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishan Lal Davna Vs Nirmal Dahariya

Sanjay Tiwari Vs Shri Krishna Murti

Bhavesh Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh