Anil Kumar Verma Vs Ramcharan

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.02.13 18:26:45 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:7902

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1439 of 2022

¶7

1 - Anil Kumar Verma S/o Kheduram Verma Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Datrengi, Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin) District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Shail Verma W/o Anil Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Datrengi, Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellants/Claimants

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - Ramcharan S/o Kunjpal Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chamarguda, Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Hiwa No. CC- 22 C 0990)

¶12

2 - Shubham Natthani S/o Ajay Natthani Aged About 33 Years R/o Sadar Bazar Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara (City), District Baloda BazarBhatapara (C.G.) (Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle Hiwa No. CG- 22 C- 0990)

¶13

3 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company, Madina Building Katchheri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Hiwa No. CG- 22 C 0990)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Appellants/Claimants	: Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 / Driver & Owner	: Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company	: Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

¶17

12/02/2026

¶18

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of

¶19

the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation assailing the

¶20

2

¶21

judgment and award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 32/2018 dated 10.08.2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.6,28,624/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Yogesh Verma.

¶22

The facts, in brief, are that on 24.06.2018 while deceased- Yogesh Verma was going towards Bhatapara on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04 / JF-3115 along with his friend Rakesh Yadu, the driver of Hyva bearing registration No. CG-22 / C-0990 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the motorbike of the deceased, resultantly Yogesh Verma and Rakesh Yadu sustained injuries and Yogesh Verma succumbed to death on account of injuries sustained in the said accident.

¶23

The claimants who are parents of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 19 years and was a student of B.A. 1^st Year. They claimed compensation a sum of Rs.30 lacs.

¶24

Respondents No. 1 and 2 / Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle filed reply and denied averments made in the claim petition. They pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company.

¶25

Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that that the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit.

¶26

The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter the award was passed.

¶27

3

¶28

Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while assessing the monthly income of the deceased Rs.3,000/-. He would further submit that the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month June 2018 was Rs.8,100/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of the deceased. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has granted a lumpsum compensation of Rs.70,000/- against loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal should have granted compensation on the conventional heads as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶29

On the other hand, Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would oppose. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and fastened liability with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle as the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit and the owner of the offending vehicle failed to prove contrary.

¶30

Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2/driver and owner of the offending vehicle would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation by applying higher interest rate of 9% per annum. He would contend that the learned

¶31

4

¶32

Claims Tribunal should have granted interest rate according to the provisions of Section 34 of CPC. He would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and there is no scope of enhancement.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection.

¶34

Admittedly, age of the deceased was 19 years at the time of accident. He was a student of B.A. 1^st Year. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents herein. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- per month which is certainly at lower side. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of June 2018 was Rs.8,100/- and in absence of evidence with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing his income. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law by granting lumpsum Rs.70,000/- for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra), and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (supra), the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate; Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.96,000/- for loss of consortium.

¶35

With regard to interest component, as liability has been fastened with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, the learned Claims Tribunal should have applied a lower rate of interest according to the provisions of Section 34 of CPC. Thus, interest rate is reduced from 9% to 6% per annum.

¶36

5

¶37

Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is

¶38

being revisited as under:-

¶39

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income as per minimum wages	Rs.3,000/- per month	Rs.8,100/- per month
2.	Future prospects @ 40%	Rs.12,00/- + Rs.3,000/-= Rs.4,200/-	Rs.3,240/- + Rs.8,100/- = Rs.11,340/-
3.	Deduction of 1/2 towards personal & living expenses	Rs.4,200/- - Rs.2,100/-= Rs.2,100/-	Rs.11,340/- - Rs.5,670/-= Rs.5,670/-
4.	Per month income of the deceased	Rs.2,100/-	Rs.5,670/-
5.	Annual income of the deceased	Rs.2,100/- x 12 = Rs.25,200/-	Rs.5,670/- x 12 = Rs.68,040/-
6.	Multiplier of 18	25,200/- x 18 = Rs.4,53,600/-	Rs.68,040/- x 18 = Rs.12,24,720/-
7.	Loss of filial consortium; loss of estate & funeral expenses	Rs.70,000/-	Rs.96,000/- for loss of consortium; Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate & Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses in total Rs.1,32,000/-
8.	Medical expenses	Rs.1,05,024/-	Rs.1,05,024/-
	Total :	Rs.6,28,624/-	Rs.14,61,744/-

¶40

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.6,28,624/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.14,61,744/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.6,28,624/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.8,33,120/- . The concerned respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 03 months from the date of

¶41

6

¶42

receipt of copy of this order. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. The amount of compensation shall be indemnified by the Insurance Company first and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle according to proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464 . Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶46

vatti

Anil Kumar Verma v. Ramcharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Verma v. Ramcharan

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

Krishna Bhoy Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwat Vs Silvant Kumar

Sheikh Nasruddin Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Dadu Dayal Metals Private Limited Vs Union of India

M/S Balajee Loha Private Limited Vs Union of India

Mm Wonder Park Private Limited. Vs Union of India