Dinesh Thakur Vs Ramcharan Sahu

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

2026:CGHC:8274

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1708 of 2023

¶7

1 - Dinesh Thakur S/o Baraturam Thakur Aged About 47 Years Resident Of Village Mohda, Post Barnawapara, Police Station Rajadeori, Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Smt. Lalita Thakur W/o Dinesh Thakur Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Village Mohda, Post Barnawapara, Police Station Rajadeori, Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Ramcharan Sahu S/o Radhelal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kolda, (Sewati), Police Chowki Bundeli, Police Station Tendukona, Tahsil Pithoura, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G. 06 - H - 0991)

¶12

2 - Omprakash Singh Chandel S/o Prakash Chandel R/o Ward No. 10, Imlibhatha, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhttisgarh. ( Owner Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G. 06 - H - 0991)

¶13

3 - Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through - Divisional Manager, Second Floor Investment Building Face -1, Jeevan Bima Marg Pandri Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G. 06 - H - 0991)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellants : Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate.

¶16

2

¶17

: Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate.

¶18

For Respondent No.3

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶20

16.02.2026

¶21

The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 17.7.2023, passed in Claim Case No.H-147 of 2022 by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.9,57,200/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Ku. Kiran Thakur.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that on 15.9.2022, deceased Kiran Thakur, was returning from Bagbahara and was traveling in a bus bearing registration No.C.G.06-H 0991. The driver of the said bus by driving it rashly and negligently, the vehicle turned turtle, resultantly, she sustained grievous injuries on various parts of the body and was admitted in the District Hospital, Mahasamund for better treatment. During the course of treatment, she succumbed to her injuries. He would submit that the parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that the age of the deceased was 23 years and earning Rs.18,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-, which is on the lower side. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has not granted appropriate compensation for loss of consortium. He would pray to enhance the

¶23

3

¶24

compensation accordingly.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. She would submit that the Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶27

Admittedly, the claimants could not lead evidence to prove the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. In absence of sufficient evidence, the learned Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of September, 2022 was Rs.9,540/- and the Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- only for loss of consortium which appears to be inadequate. The appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.44,000/each for loss of consortium.

¶28

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation, and the same is revisited herein below:

¶29

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs.6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/-	Rs. 9,540 x 12 = Rs. 1,14,480/-
2.	Future Prospect	40% (28,800/-) (72,000 + 28,800 = 1,00,800/-	40% - 45,792/- (1,14,480 + 45,792 = 1,60,272/-)
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/2 (50,400/-) (1,00,800 – 50,400 = 50,400/-)	(-) 1/2 (80,136/-) (Rs.1,60,272-80,136) = Rs. 80,136/-
4.	Multiplier	(x)18 = Rs.(50,400 x	(x)18 = Rs.(80,136 x 18

¶30

4

¶31

		18 = 9,07,200/-)	= 14,42,448/-)
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 20,000/-	Rs. 44,000 x 2 = 88,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 9,57,200/-	Rs. 15,60,448/-

¶32

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.9,57,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.20,19,298/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.9,57,200/- , the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.6,03,248/- . The Insurance Company/respondent No. 3 is directed to make payment of compensation to the claimants within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and the Insurance Company would be at liberty to recover it from respondent No.2/ owner of the offending vehicle. 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.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶36

Nimmi

Dinesh Thakur v. Ramcharan Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Thakur v. Ramcharan Sahu

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

Sanjeev Kumar Sonthaliya Vs Sanjay Agrawal

Yashvant Sawariya (Died and Deleted Through Lrs) Vs Poonamchand Agrawal

P. R. Naik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Heera Bai

Smt. Anju Tiwari Vs Mohd. Akram

Praveen Tiwari Vs Smt. Sunita Anant