Narayan Bhagat Vs Rajesh Kumar Mishra

1 - Rajesh Kumar Mishra S/o R.B. Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Parpa Nakapara Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle),...(Non-Applicants)

¶12

2 - Milkha Singh S/o Late Ranjeet Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Near Motilal Neharu Hostel Nayapara Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), (Owner Of The Vehicle).

¶13

3 - Sagar Choudhary S/o Shyam Choudhary Aged About 29 Years R/o Parpa Nakapara, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.), (Co Owner Cum Possession Holder Of Offending Vehicle).

¶14

4 - The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Shop No. 205, Second Floor, M.M. Silver Bhawan Rinog Road No. 1, Opposite Udyog Bhawan, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.),...(Insurer)

¶15

--- Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellants	:Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Nirala,Advocate
For Respondent No 1 to 3	:None
For Respondent No.4	: Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. P. R. Patankar,Advocate

¶17

2

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶19

Judgment on Board

¶20

02/02/2026

¶21

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal assailing the award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Place Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Claim Case No.313/2021, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,81,800/- with interest @ 9 % per annum on account of death of Manish Kumar Bhagat.

¶22

Mr. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that on 09.10.2021, the motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by the driver of the offending truck bearing registration No. CG-17-H-0855, in the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumb to death. He would further submit that at the time of accident, his age was about 24 years old and earning Rs. 25,000 per month. He would further submit that the claimants filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed Rs.43,20,000/-. They pleaded that the deceased was hawker and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. He would further submit that learned Tribunal assessed income of the deceased Rs.9,000/- per month. He would submit that deceased was an unskilled labourer and learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix while assessing income of the deceased. He would contend that on other heads, the learned Tribunal has granted meager amount; thus, he would pray for enhancement accordingly.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants and submit that learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation to the claimants.

¶24

3

¶25

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

¶26

Narayan Bhagat (AW/1), father of the deceased stated that on the fateful date, the motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by the driver of the offending tractor. In para-4, he stated that his son was hawker, who used to sell provision items on motorcycle. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he could not adduce documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased.

¶27

In absence of documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal should have taken the minimum wage matrix admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of October, 2021. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of October, 2021 was Rs.9,280/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure for computation of compensation of the income of the deceased.

¶28

The Learned Tribunal further granted a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants under the head of loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Learned Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects and applied multiplier of 18, and deducted 50 % towards personal and living expenses of deceased; thus, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has granted proper compensation on other heads.

¶29

In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is revisited as under:-

¶30

Sr. No	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this
.		(A)	Court(B)
1.	Annual Income	Rs.9,000 × 12 = Rs.1,08,000/-	Rs.9,280 × 12 = Rs.1,11,360/-
2.	Future Prospects	40% = Rs.43,200/-	40% = Rs.44,544/-

¶31

4

¶32

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal (A)	Compensation awarded by this Court(B)
	Total Income	Rs.1,51,200/-	Rs.1,55,904/-
3.	Deduction(1/2)	50% = Rs.75,600/-	50% = Rs.77,952/-
4.	Multiplier	18 × Rs.75,600 = Rs.13,60,800/-	18 × Rs.77,952 = Rs.14,03,136/-
5.	Loss of Consortium	Rs.40,000 × 2 + 10% = Rs.88,000/-	Rs.40,000 × 2 + 10% = Rs.88,000/-
6.	Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000 + 10% = Rs.16,500/-	Rs.15,000 + 10% = Rs.16,500/-
7.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.15,000 + 10% = Rs.16,500/-	Rs.15,000 + 10% = Rs.16,500/-
	Total	A = Rs.14,81,800/-	B = Rs.15,24,136/-
	Final compensation	A-B = Rs.42,336/-

¶33

In view of the above calculation, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.42,336/- . The respondents No.1, 2 & 4 are directed to pay the enhanced compensation jointly and severally of Rs.42,336/- with interest @ 9 % per annum to the appellants/claimants within a period of 60 days . Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶34

Nadim

Narayan Bhagat v. Rajesh Kumar Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Bhagat v. Rajesh Kumar Mishra

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

Sita Bai (Died and deleted) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Surojiya Vs Deepak Sahu

Branch Manager Vs Gahru Singh Baiga

Akshay Das Vs Babban Rai S/o Mohar Rai

Laxmin Bai Chouhan Vs Satyanarayan Gond

M/S Amar Infrastructure Limited ( Formerly Amar Builders ) Vs State of Chhattisgarh