Smt. Tileshwari Bai Vs Arun Kumar @ Pintu

¶1

-1-

¶2

2026:CGHC:1569

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 264 of 2022

¶6

1 - Smt. Tileshwari Bai W/o Late Yogesh Thakur Aged About 39 Years Permanent R/o Village Majhipara, Thana Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) Hall Mukam Sirgitti Bannak Chowk, Thana Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Vishisht Thakur S/o Late Yogeh Thakur Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Tileshwari Bai, Permanent R/o Village Majhipara, Thana Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) Hall Mukam Sirgitti Bannak Chowk, Thana Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Yakshansh Thakur S/o Late Yogesh Thakur Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Tileshwari Bai, Permanent R/o Village Majhipara, Thana Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) Hall Mukam Sirgitti Bannak Chowk, Thana Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Kamal Devi W/o Dilharan Singh Thakur Aged About 68 Years Permanent R/o Village Majhipara, Thana Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) Hall Mukam Sirgitti Bannak Chowk, Thana Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Dilharan Singh S/o Sukhuru Singh Thakur Aged About 70 Years Permanent R/o Village Majhipara, Thana Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) Hall Mukam Sirgitti Bannak Chowk, Thana Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Arun Kumar @ Pintu S/o Daddo Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Daihan Thana And Tahsil Baloud, District Baloud (Chhattisgarh)..........(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bus No. C.G.27/f./0109)., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶14

2 - Secretary, Ram Krishna Mission Aashram, Through Manager/ Founder, Ram Krishna Mission Aashram Narayanpur, Thana And District Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh)......(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bus No. C.G.27/f./0109), District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office First Floor Rama Trade Centre, Rajiv Plaza In Front Of Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).............(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bus No. C.G.27/f./0109)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

-2-

¶18

For Appellants/Claimants	: Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate
For respondent No.3/Insurance	: Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶20

12.01.2026

¶21

1. Heard.

¶22

1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur(C.G.) in Claim Case No.996/2018 dated 25.09.2021 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.10,75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Yogesh Thakur in motor accident.

¶23

1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the deceased who was a journalist working with Sahara India News Chanel met with an accident on 08.09.2018 as offending bus bearing registration No.C.G.27/F/0109 dashed his motorcycle from backside, resultantly, he succumbed to death. He would further submit that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/--60,000/- per month but learned Tribunal assessed his income Rs.6,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has granted meager amount for loss of consortium to claimants No.2 to 5. It is also argued that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of estate. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶24

-3-

¶25

1. On the other hand, Mr.Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Singroul. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would further submit that the claimants failed to prove income of the deceased properly. He would contend that no documentary evidence was adduced before the learned Tribunal to establish the fact that the deceased was a journalist working on contract with Sahara India News Chanel. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

1. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶27

1. A perusal of record would show that the claimants could not produce evidence to establish the fact that the deceased was a journalist working with Sahara India News Chanel. The income of the deceased was also not proved. The statement of bank account Ex.P/28 has been placed on record to establish that on 31.08.2018 Rs.50,000/- was deposited in his account but on the basis of single entry made in the bank account of the deceased, it cannot be presumed that the deceased was an employee of Sahara India News Chanel earning Rs.50,000/- per month. In absence of order of appointment and other relevant documents, learned Tribunal rightly concluded that the claimants could not prove income of deceased.

¶28

-4-

¶29

1. As the claimants could not prove income of deceased leading cogent evidence, therefore, learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix while assessing income of deceased. The deceased was an educated person, therefore, learned Tribunal should have treated him a skilled labourer. The minimum wage admissible to a skilled labourer in the month of September, 2018 was Rs.10,050/- per month and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure into account while computing the compensation. Further, learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants No.2 to 5. The compensation for loss of estate is also not given to the claimants.

¶30

1. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below:

¶31

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs.6000x12= Rs.72,000/-	Rs.10,050x12=Rs.1,20,600
2.	Future Prospect	25% of 72,000 = 18,000/- 72,000 + 18,000 = 90,000/-	25% of 1,20,600 = 30,150/- 1,20,600+30,150=1,50,750
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/4 =Rs.22,500/- 90,000 – 22,500 = 67,500	(-) 1/4= 37,687 1,50,750-37,687=1,13,063
4.	Multiplier	(x) 14 = Rs. 9,45,000	(x) 14 =Rs. 15,82,882/-
5.	Other heads- loss of Consortium (for appellant No.1)	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.40,000/-
6.	Loss of Consortium(for	Rs.75,000/-	Rs.40,000 x 4 =1,60,000/-

¶32

-5-

¶33

	appellant No.2 to 5
7.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
8.	Loss of Estate	Nil	Rs. 15,000/-
9.	Total	Rs. 10,75,000/-	Rs. 18,12,882/-

¶34

1. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.10,75,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.18,12,882/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,75,000/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.7,37,882/- . The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of award shall remain intact.

¶35

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

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

Rekha

Smt. Tileshwari Bai v. Arun Kumar @ Pintu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tileshwari Bai v. Arun Kumar @ Pintu

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

Triveni Patwa Vs Reeta Pal

Dr. Fariha Alam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Madhav Dixena @ Jagmohan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Barmaiya Vs Parmeshwar Patel

Sambhu Korram Vs Deleted Union of India as Per Honble Court Order Dt. 25/09/17

Kishan Kumabhkar Vs Vijay Kumar Singh