Pahalwan Singh Vs Vedbhuvan Pottam

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.14 11:28:51 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:1841

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 177 of 2023

¶7

Pahalwan Singh S/o Shivraj Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Ngwahi, Post Andi, Thana/tahsil Pendra, District Gaurela -Pendra -Marvahi Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Nawagaon, Ratanpur Thana Ratanpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Syamkali Porte W/o. Pahalwan Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Ngwahi, Post Andi, Thana/tahsil Pendra, District Gaurela -Pendra -Marvahi Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Nawagaon, Ratanpur Thana Ratanpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Santoshi Porte D/o. Pahalwan Singh Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Ngwahi, Post Andi, Thana/tahsil Pendra, District Gaurela -Pendra -Marvahi Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Nawagaon, Ratanpur Thana Ratanpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellant(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

Vedbhuvan Pottam S/o L.S. Pottam, Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village And Post Andi, Thana Pendra, District Gaurela -Pendra - Marvahi Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Gulab Singh S/o Pusau Singh, R/o Village Damdam, Post Kotmi, Tahsil Pendra, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3. Branch Manager, S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Rama Port, 2nd Floor, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Thana - Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellants/Claimants	: Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate
For respondents No. 2	: Ms. Najmi Begam, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

13.01.2026

¶19

It is an admitted appeal.

¶20

With the consent of the parties matter is heard finally.

¶21

The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation

¶22

2

¶23

assailing the award passed by the learned 6 th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 975/2021 dated 25.07.2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation a sum of Rs. 12,71,480/with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on account of death of Krishna Chandra Porte in motor accident.

¶24

Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate would submit that on 31.05.2021 the motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by the offending Tractor bearing registration No. CG 10 AX 7098. He would contend that the parents and sister of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein, they pleaded that the age of the deceased, at the time of accident, was 21 years and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He would contend that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 7,900/which is at lower side. He would contend that in absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal should have treated the deceased an unskilled labourer and should have applied minimum wages matrix. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants No. 2 and 3. He would pray to enhance the compensation.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 21 years and he was a bachelor. The claimants failed to prove income of the deceased by leading clinching evidence. In absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal should have treated the deceased an unskilled labourer. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of May, 2021 was

¶28

3

¶29

Rs. 9,200/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing compensation. Further, the learned Tribunal failed to grant compensation for loss of consortium to the father and sister of the deceased. Thus, the compensation requires re-visitation and same is being

¶30

revisited herein-below :-

¶31

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensati awarded by t Court	on his
1.	Income	Rs. 7,900 x12 = Rs. 94,800/-	Rs. 9,200 x12 = 1,10,400/-	Rs.
2.	Future Prospect	(40%) = 37,920/-	(40%) = 44,160/-	Rs.
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/2 Rs. 66,360/- Rs. 66,360/-	(-) 1/2 Rs. 77,28 Rs. 77,280/-	0/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 18 = Rs. 11,94,480/-	(x) 18 = 13,91,040/-	Rs.
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 16,500	Rs. 16,500
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
7.	Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 1)		Rs. 44,000/-
8.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 2)	Rs. 44,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-
9.	Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 3)		Rs. 44,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 12,71,480/-	Rs. 15,56,040/-

¶32

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 12,71,480/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,56,040 / - . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 12,71,480 / -, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,84,560 /-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a

¶33

4

¶34

period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellants 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.

¶35

Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed.

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

$iddhant

Pahalwan Singh v. Vedbhuvan Pottam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pahalwan Singh v. Vedbhuvan Pottam

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

Assistant Engineer and Others Vs Daulatram Sahu and Another

Kunjal Prasad Rajwade Vs Lalita Gupta

Santosh Sarthi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Pramila Bai Vs Sonuram Netam

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Tileshwar Prasad

Tirath Deshmukh Vs Balram Tandan