Kachru Ram Tekam Vs Gajendra Kumar Tulavi

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.06 14:53:26 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:341

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1357 of 2024

¶6

Kachru Ram Tekam S/o Mithuram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Gumdidih, P.S. And Tahsil Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G., Present Address Albelapara Kanker, District Kanker, C.G.

¶7

Smt. Suko Bai Tekam W/o Kachru Ram Tekam Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gumdidih, P.S. And Tahsil Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G., Present Address Albelapara Kanker, District Kanker, C.G.

¶8

Ku. Mamta Tekam D/o Kachru Ram Tekam Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Gumdidih, P.S. And Tahsil Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G., Present Address Albelapara Kanker, District Kanker, C.G.

¶9

Makhan Lal Tekam S/o Kachru Ram Tekam Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Gumdidih, P.S. And Tahsil Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G., Present Address Albelapara Kanker, District Kanker, C.G.

¶10

... Appellant(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

Gajendra Kumar Tulavi S/o Kangel Ram Tulavi Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Budeli, P.S. Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. (Driver)

¶13

Jagdish Dugga S/o Birjhuram Dugga Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chahchad, P.S. And Tahsil Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. (Owner)

¶14

3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Chauhan State, G.E. Road, Supela Bhilai District Durg, C.G. (Insurer)

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ : Ms Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief Insurance Company of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

05.01.2026

¶19

Heard on admission.

¶20

With the consent of the parties matter is heard finally.

¶21

2

¶22

The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District North Bastar Kanker in Claim Case No. 120/2023 dated 04.05.2024, wherein the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,43,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on account of death of Manoj Kumar Tekam.

¶23

Mr. Patel would submit that on 25.08.2023 at about 10.40 am driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No. CG 19 BM 7343 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed Manoj Kumar Tekam, resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. He would contend that the parents and siblings filed claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein, they pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 18 years and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and they claimed sum of Rs. 33,24,000/-. He would submit that driver, owner as well as Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and denied averments. He would contend that the learned Tribunal after due appreciation passed an award, but failed to consider the income of the deceased in accordance with the minimum wages matrix admissible to an unskilled labouerer. In the month of August, 2023, the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer was Rs. 9,960/- but the learned Tribunal assessed it Rs. 7,500/-, which is at lower side. He would fairly submit that on conventional heads the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would pray to enhance the amount of compensation.

¶24

On the other hand, Ms. Swati Agrawal would oppose. She would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶26

3

¶27

Admittedly, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 7,500/-. In the month of August, 2023, the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer was Rs. 9,960/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while assessing the compensation. On other heads, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation.

¶28

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the compensation requires revisitation and same is being recomputed herein-

¶29

below :-

¶30

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 7,500 x12 = Rs. 90,000/-	Rs. 9,960 x12 = Rs. 1,19,520/-
2.	Future Prospect	(40%) = 36,000/-	(40%) = Rs. 47,808/-
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/2 Rs. 63,000/- Rs. 63,000/-	(-) 1/2 Rs. 83,664/- Rs. 83,664/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 18 = Rs. 11,34,000/-	(x) 18 = Rs. 15,05,952/-
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 16,500	Rs. 16,500
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
7.	Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 1)	Rs. 44,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-
8.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 2)	Rs. 44,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-
9.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 3)	Rs. 44,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-
10.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 4)	Rs. 44,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 13,43,000/-	Rs. 17,14,952/-

¶31

4

¶32

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.13,43,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 17,14,952 / - . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 13,43,000 / -, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,71,952 /- with interest at the rate of 7%. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶33

10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed.

¶34

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

$iddhant

Kachru Ram Tekam v. Gajendra Kumar Tulavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kachru Ram Tekam v. Gajendra Kumar Tulavi

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

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

Jawahar Lal Vs Anil Kumar

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