Ramayan Bai Shriwas Vs Vimlesh Kumar Sharma

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:17785

¶3

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 494 of 2020

¶7

1 - Ramayan Bai Shriwas W/o Late Ramshankar Shriwas Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Champa, Police Station And Tahsil - Champa, District- Janjgir-Chmpa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Ku. Saraswati Shriwas D/o Late Ramshankar Shriwas, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Champa, Police Station And Tahsil - Champa, District- Janjgir-Chmpa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Ku. Neha Shriwas D/o Late Ramshankar Shriwas Aged About 4 Years R/o Village- Champa, Police Station And Tahsil - Champa, District- Janjgir-Chmpa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

Versus

¶12

1 - Vimlesh Kumar Sharma S/o Devnarayan Sharma Aged About 44 Years R/o Sutarra Road, Bankimongra, Police Station- Bankimongra, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Jimdar Rai S/o Ramjut Rai Aged About 30 Years R/o VillagePurkhouli, Chatti, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Vaishali, Bihar, At Present R/o Chhurakachhar, Bankimonga, Police Station- Bankimongra, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - National Insurance Compoany Limited Division Officer- Korba 290600, Plot No. 768, First Floor, Bandhan Bank Ke Upar, Niharika Kosabvadi, Main Road, Kosabadi, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]

¶17

----------------------------------- For Appellants	------- :	------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate
For Respondents- 1 & 2	:	None though served.
For Respondent No.3 -----------------------------------	: -------	Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------

¶18

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

2

(Order on Board)

20.04.2026

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. 01.02.2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.8,62,000/- as compensation for the death of Ramshankar Shriwas.

¶23

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.9,000 /- per month which should be Rs.9,780/- as per 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 @ 10% of his income. Even on the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses just and proper amount has not been awarded and same are liable to be enhanced accordingly. T herefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶24

3 . Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company 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

¶25

3

¶26

the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶27

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

¶28

5 . Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.9,000/-, 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.9780/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, no amount on the head of future prospect has been awarded, where it ought to have been taken upto 10% of the income of the deceased. Even, on the loss of estate, funeral expenses and heads of loss of consortium to each of the appellants Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively have only been awarded in total, but it ought to have been awarded Rs.18,000/-, Rs. 18,000/- and Rs.40,000/- X 3 = Rs.1,20,000/- respectively for all the appellants.

¶29

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.

¶30

Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors 2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3, this Court is computing

¶31

the compensation as below:-

¶32

Sr.	Heads	Compensation	Compensation
1	(2017) 16 SCC 680
2	(2009) 6 SCC 121
3	(2018) 18 SCC 130

¶33

4

¶34

No.		awarded by Tribunal	the	awarded by Court	this
1.	Income	Rs.9000/- x 1 Rs.1,08,000/-	2 =	Rs.9780/- x Rs.1,17,360/-	12 =
2	Future Prospect	Nil		(+) 10% (i.e. 11736/-) = Rs.1,29,096	Rs. /-
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/3	(i.e.	(-) 1/3	(i.e.
		Rs.36,000) = 72,000/-	Rs.	Rs.43,032/-) Rs.86,064/-	=
4.	Multiplier	(x) 11	=	(x) 11	=
		Rs.7,92,000/-		Rs.9,46,704/-
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-		Rs.18,000/-
6.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.15,000/-		Rs.18,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs.40,000/-		Rs.1,20,000/-
	Total	Rs.8,62,000/-		Rs.11,02,704/	-

¶35

7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.8,62,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.11,02,704/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.8,62,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,40,704/- . 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 @ 8% 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.

¶36

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

¶37

sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶38

s@if

Ramayan Bai Shriwas v. Vimlesh Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramayan Bai Shriwas v. Vimlesh Kumar Sharma

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

United Inida Insurance Company Limited Vs Dilsay Sahu

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Conpany Ltd. Vs Smt. Sarita Sidar

Smt. Manmati Vs Tirath Singh

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Radheshyam

Minor Vivek Patel Vs Manoj Singh

Surato Bai Rathiya Vs Faruk Ansari