Smt. Mithila Yadav Vs Krishnachandra Pandey

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶3

2026:CGHC:15491

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 2111 of 2019

¶7

1 - Smt. Mithila Yadav W/o Late Hardo Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Ghushramuda Dangpadar, P. S. Muribahal, Tahsil Titlagarh, District Balangir Orissa At Present R/o Happy Poulty Form Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Dashrath Yadav S/o Late Hardo Yadav Aged About 15 Years Appellant No. 02 Is Minor Through Mother And Natural Guardian (Appellant No. 01) R/o Village Ghushramuda Dangpadar, P. S. Muribahal, Tahsil Titlagarh, District Balangir Orissa At Present R/o Happy Poulty Form Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Ku. Jaya Yadav D/o Late Hardo Yadav Aged About 13 Years Appellant No. 03 Is Minor Through Mother And Natural Guardian (Appellant No. 01) R/o Village Ghushramuda Dangpadar, P. S. Muribahal, Tahsil Titlagarh, District Balangir Orissa At Present R/o Happy Poulty Form Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - Ku. Prabhavati Yadav D/o Late Hardo Yadav Aged About 10 Years Appellant No. 04 Is Minor Through Mother And Natural Guardian (Appellant No. 01) R/o Village Ghushramuda Dangpadar, P. S. Muribahal, Tahsil Titlagarh, District Balangir Orissa At Present R/o Happy Poulty Form Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

5 - Ku. Kishori Yadav D/o Late Hardo Yadav Aged About 8 Years Appellant No. 05 Is Minor Through Mother And Natural Guardian (Appellant No. 01) R/o Village Ghushramuda Dangpadar, P. S. Muribahal, Tahsil Titlagarh, District Balangir Orissa At Present R/o Happy Poulty Form Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

6 - Ku. Sapna Yadav D/o Late Hardo Yadav Aged About 6 Years Appellant No. 06 Is Minor Through Mother And Natural Guardian (Appellant No. 01) R/o Village Ghushramuda Dangpadar, P. S. Muribahal, Tahsil Titlagarh, District Balangir Orissa At Present R/o

¶13

2

¶14

Happy Poulty Form Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Appellants

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - Krishnachandra Pandey S/o Ranjeet Pandey R/o Village Singalpur, Post Borikel, P. S. Padampur, District Balangir Orissa .........(Driver Of Bus No. O. R. 17- J-9244), District : Balangir, Orissa

¶18

2 - Sharat Kumar S/o Kunj Bihari Barpanda R/o Village And Post Paikamal, District Bargarh, Orissa (Owner Of Bus No. O. R. 17-J-9244), District : Bargarh *, Orissa

¶19

3 - The Iffco Tokoyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through In Charge Officer The Iffco Tokoyo General Insurance Co. Ltd., 205 M. M. Silver Plasa, Ring, Road No. 01, Near Khanij Bhavan, Raipur P. S. Telibandha, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ..........(Insurer Of Bus No. O. R. 17-J-9244), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. R.K. Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate on behalf Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate

¶21

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶22

(Order on Board)

¶23

06.04.2026

¶24

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 05.07.2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.8,35,000/- as compensation for the death of Hardo Yadav, who was aged about 36 years on the date of occurrence.

¶25

2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as R s.5,000 /- per month which should be Rs.5787/- as per

¶26

3

¶27

Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, learned Claims Tribunal also erred in not calculating any amount under the head of future prospect which ought to have been granted @ 40% of his income. Even no amount on the head of loss of estate has been awarded and the amount on the head of loss of consortium also liable to be enhanced accordingly. T herefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶28

3 . Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of the deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶29

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

¶30

5 . Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Kheeru Chouhan to be Rs.5000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.5787/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, no amount on the head of future

¶31

4

¶32

prospect has been awarded, where it ought to have been taken upto 40% of the income of the deceased. Even, no amount on the head of loss of estate has been granted, on which, Rs.10,000/- has to be increased, whereas on the heads of loss of consortium to each of the appellants Rs.1,50,000/- have been awarded in total, but it ought to have been awarded Rs.2,40,000/- for all the appellants.

¶33

6. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors 2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3, this Court is computing

¶34

the compensation as below:-

¶35

Sr.	Heads	Compensation	Compensatio	n
No.		awarded by the Tribunal	awarded by Court	this
1.	Income	Rs.5000/- x 12 =	Rs.5787/- x	12 =
		Rs.60,000/-	Rs.69,444/-
2.	Deduction	(-) 1/4 (i.e.	(-) 1/4	(i.e.
		Rs.15,000) = Rs. 45,000/-	Rs.17,361/-) Rs.52,083/-	=
3.	Future Prospect	Nil	(+) 40% (i.e. 20,833/-) = Rs.72,916/-	Rs.
4.	Multiplier	(x) 15 =	(x) 15	=
		Rs. 6,75,000/-	Rs.10,93,740/	-
5.	Loss of Estate	NIL	Rs. 10,000/-
6.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.10,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 1,50,000/-	Rs.2,40,000/-

¶36

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶37

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶38

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶39

5

¶40

Total

¶41

Rs.8,35,000/Rs.13,53,920/-

¶42

7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.8,35,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.13,53,920/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.8,35,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,18,740/- . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 05.07.2017 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶43

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

¶44

sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶45

s@if

Smt. Mithila Yadav v. Krishnachandra Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mithila Yadav v. Krishnachandra Pandey

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

Puran Singh Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durga Prasad Sahu Vs Ravi Shankar Sahu

Ankit Singh Paikara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.Jamuna Bai Sone Vs Rajesh Kumar Dangi

Bhupendra Sahu Vs Ranveer Singh

Smt. Manti Netam Vs Chandakaramu Naidu