Smt. Hina Vs Bhajan Lal Desana

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

2026:CGHC:75

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 594 of 2021

¶7

1 - Smt. Hina W/o Late Komal Ram Aged About 27 Years R/o Post And Thana Magarlod, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Kuber S/o Late Komal Ram Aged About 7 Years Minor , Through Their Natural Gurdian-Mother, Smt. Hina, W/o Late Komal Ram R/o Post And Thana Magarlod, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Kosmi D/o Late Komal Ram Aged About 5 Years Minor , Through Their Natural Gurdian-Mother, Smt. Hina, W/o Late Komal Ram R/o Post And Thana Magarlod, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - Smt. Ishwari Bai W/o Premlal Aged About 50 Years R/o Post And Thana Magarlod, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶11

5 - Premlal S/o Late Mangalu Ram Aged About 53 Years R/o Post And Thana Magarlod, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Bhajan Lal Desana S/o Panna Lal Desana Aged About 37 Years R/o Dongaripali, P.O. Mithalal, Tahsil And Thana Paikkhal, District - Bargarh (Odissa) ......... (Driver Of The Vehicle) Through Sanket Kumar Agrawal, R/o House Of Premchand Daga, Gudiyari, Near Jagannath Mandir, Gudiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶15

2 - Sanket Kumar Agrawal S/o Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 25 Years R/o Dongaripali, P.O. Mithalal, Tahsil And Thana Paikkhal, District - Bargarh (Odissa)

¶16

2

¶17

Present Address - R/o House Of Premchand Daga, Gudiyari, Near Jagannath Mandir, Gudiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ................... (Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

3 - Divisional Manager Cholamandalam, M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd., Front Of Lic Office, Simran Tower, Pandari, P.O., Tahsil, Thana And District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) .................. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

For Appellants : Shri Kunal Das, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate.

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶22

02.01.2026

¶23

The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 7.2.2019, passed in Claim Case No.38 of 2018 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurud, District Dhamtari whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.10,23,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Komal Ram.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the motorcycle of Komal Ram was dashed by the driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No.C.G./04/LF/6515 by driving it rashly and negligently on 26.2.2018 at about 11:00 pm, resultantly, he sustained injuries and during course of treatment, he died. He would submit that the widow, two minor children and parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that

¶25

3

¶26

the age of the deceased was 28 years and earning Rs.23,500/- 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, future prospects and loss of estate. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

A perusal of the award would make it clear that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. In absence of evidence with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix to assess his income. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2018 was Rs.8,190/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure into consideration. The learned Tribunal has granted compensation for loss of consortium to widow of the deceased only. The minor children have been awarded Rs.50,000/- under the said head. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects. Further, the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of estate. Accordingly, the compensation requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below:

¶30

4

¶31

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs.6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/-	Rs. 8,190 x 12 = Rs. 98,280/-
2.	Future Prospect	---	40% - 39,312/- (98,280 + 39,312 = 1,37,592/-)
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/4th (18,000/-) (72,000 – 18,000 = 54,000/-	(-) 1/4th (34,398/-) (Rs.1,37,592-34,398) = Rs. 1,03,194/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 17 = Rs. (54,000 x 17 = 9,18,000/-)	(x) 17 = Rs. (1,03,194 x 17 = 17,54,298/-)
5.	Loss of Estate	---	Rs. 18,000/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 40,000 + 50,000 = 90,000/- (wife and two children)	Rs. 40,000 + 48,000 x 4 = 2,32,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 10,23,000/-	Rs. 20,19,298/-

¶32

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.10,23,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.20,19,298/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,19,298/- , the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.9,96,298/- . The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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

¶37

5

Smt. Hina v. Bhajan Lal Desana

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt. Hina v. Bhajan Lal Desana

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

SBI General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kumaram

Sadanand Sarthi Vs Anwar Haq Diwan

Aayti Mandawi Vs Bhima Bhaskar

Kamtaprasad Ratre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Niharika Baghel Vs Mohammad Rauf Siddiqui

Smt. Kunti Bai Verma Vs Rajendra Kumar Verma (Died and Deleted)