Smt. Hembati Shori Vs Girwar Soni

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.02.11 17:10:50 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:7247

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1560 of 2023

¶7

Smt. Hembati Shori Wd/o Late Sukhdas Shori Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Jhara Matagudi, Post Ghorawand, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh

¶8

Minor Nabya Shori D/o Late Sukhdas Shori Aged About 7 Years Appellant No. 2 And 3 Are Minor Through Appellant No. 1 Smt. Hembati Shori (Mother) R/o Village Jhara Matagudi, Post Ghorawand, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh

¶9

Minor Aaradhna Shori D/o Late Sukhdas Shori Aged About 3 Years Appellant No. 2 And 3 Are Minor Through Appellant No. 1 Smt. Hembati Shori (Mother) R/o Village Jhara Matagudi, Post Ghorawand, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellant(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

Girwar Soni S/o Shiva Soni Aged About 24 Years R/o Jabranpara, Ward No. 09, Charama District Kanker Chhattisgarh (Driver)

¶13

Vinay Khatri S/o Foolchand Khatri Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Goral Bazar Khairagarh, Deewanbada, Ward No. 7, P.S. Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Owner)

¶14

Branch Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, Branch Office Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurance Co.)

¶15

4. Smt. Foolobai W/o Shamnath Shori Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Jhara, Matagudi, Post Ghorawand, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Co Claimant)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶19

10.02.2026

¶20

The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation

¶21

2

¶22

assailing award passed by the learned 1 st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttar Bastar Kanker in Claim Case No. 9/2022 dated 19.04.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 14,18,600/- with interest at the rate of 9% per anum on account of death of Sukhdas Shori.

¶23

Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that on 25.02.2021 at around 9:30 am motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by another motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 04 HJ 1949. In said accident, Sukhdas Shori sustained injuries and during course of treatment succumbed to death. He would submit that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 34 years and earning Rs. 10,000/- but the learned Tribunal assessed his income Rs. 6,000/- per month, which is at lower side. He would fairly submit that on other heads, the learned Tribunal has granted just compensation. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate appearing for Insurance Company 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

Admittedly, the claimants pleaded income of the deceased Rs. 10,000/-, but they failed to adduce cogent evidence in this regard. In absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal should have treated the deceased an unskilled labourer and should have applied minimum wage matrix. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2021 was Rs. 8,960/- and said figure should have been taken by the learned Tribunal while computing income of the deceased. The

¶27

3

¶28

compensation on other heads appears to be proper. With regard to income

¶29

part, the compensation is being revisited herein-below :-

¶30

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 6,000 x12 = Rs. 72,000/-	Rs. 8,960 x12 = Rs. 1,07,520/-
2.	Future Prospect	(40%) = 28,800/-	(40%) = Rs. 43,008/-
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/4 Rs. 25,200/- Rs. 75,600/-	(-) 1/4 Rs. 37,632/- Rs. 1,12,896/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 16 = Rs. 12,09,600/-	(x) 16 = Rs. 18,06,336/-
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
7.	Loss of Spousal Consortium (for appellant No. 1)	Rs. 44,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-
8.	Loss of Parental consortium(for appellant No. 2)	Rs. 44,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-
9.	Loss of Parental consortium(for appellant No. 3)	Rs. 44,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-
9.	Loss of filial consortium(for respondent No. 4)	Rs. 44,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 14,18,600/-	Rs. 20,15,336/-

¶31

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 14,18,600/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 20,15,336 / - . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 14,18,600 / -, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of

¶32

4

¶33

Rs. 5,96,736 /- with interest at the rate of 9%. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The claimants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal . Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶34

Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed.

¶35

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶36

$iddhant

Smt. Hembati Shori v. Girwar Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hembati Shori v. Girwar Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Archana Mishra (in Person) Vs Andhra Bank

Awadhesh Narayan Mishra (in Person) Vs Andhra Bank

Rupesh Kumar Verma Vs C.G. State Information Commission

Kalam Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Krishna Nagar Residents Association Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashru Gond (Since Dead) Vs State of Chhattisgarh