Meena Banjare Vs Ramprasad

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:17469

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1628 of 2019

¶6

1 - Meena Banjare D/o Jhumuklal Aged About 40 Years Caste Satnami R/o Village Dhekngarh, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.,

¶7

... Appellant (s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Ramprasad S/o Shri Bharatlal Sonwani Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kunda, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandriya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Picup Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10c- 9722), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Goverdhan Prasad Sahu S/o H.R. Sahu R/o Bhandhwapara, Chhatan, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Picup Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10c-9722)., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited (Icic) Bank Commercial Building Devendra Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2	:	Mr. AL Singroul, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3	:	Miss Harneet Kaur, Advocate.

¶14

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2026.04.17 18:11:36 +0530

¶15

2

¶16

(Single Bench)

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

16/04/2026 :

¶20

The appellant/claimant has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 29.9.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.53/2014 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.4,62,500/- has been fastened on the Insurance Company. In the present Appeal, the appellant/claimant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶21

Mr. CK Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- inasmuch as the deceased was working as Mason and was earning Rs.400 - Rs.500/- per day and as per minimum wages at the relevant point of time, his monthly income should have been assessed at Rs.5,163/-. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that towards funeral expenses and loss of estate meagre amount of Rs.2,000/- & Rs.2,500/- respectively has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal, which may be enhanced suitably. As such, the impugned award may be modified accordingly.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award.

¶23

3

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶25

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas as per the minimum wages at the relevant point of time, monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs.5,163/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the minimum wages at the relevant point of time, it would be appropriate to enhance award amount by taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,163/-. As such, the claimant will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this

¶26

Court:-

¶27

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensati awarded by Court	on this
1.	Loss of Income	Rs.4,000/- per month Rs.4,000/- x 12 = Rs.48,000/- per annum	Income as Minimum W Rs.5,163/- month Rs.61,956/- annum	per ages per i.e. per
2.	40% future prospect	Nil (Rs.48,000/-)	40% f prospect Rs.24,782/- Rs.61,956/- Rs.86,738/-	uture = + =
3.	Deduction ½	Rs.48,000/- x ½ = Rs.24,000/-	Rs.86,738/- = Rs.43,369	x ½ /-
4.	Multiplier	17 x Rs.24,000/-	17 x Rs.43,	369/-

¶28

4

¶29

		= Rs.4,08,000/-	= Rs.7,37,273/-
5.	Loss of dependency	Rs.4,08,000/-	Rs.7,37,273/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs.2,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
7.	Loss of estate	Rs.2,500/-	Rs.15,000/-
8.	Loss of parental consortium	Rs.50,000/-	Rs.40,000/-
	Total	Rs.4,62,500/-	Rs.8,07,273/-

¶30

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹4,62,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹8,07,273/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹4,62,500/- , the claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹3,44,773/- . The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶31

With the aforesaid modifications, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶34

Barve

Meena Banjare v. Ramprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Banjare v. Ramprasad

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

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Savita Sandilya

Bablu Dewangan Vs Vifal @ Prakash Vishwakarma

Rameshwari Markhandey Vs Smt. Dropati Markhandey

Agam Nirmalkar Vs Munnalal Patel

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Kunwar Singh Keshar

Smt. Balwanti Tirkey Vs Satish Kashyap