Durgesh Kumar Vs Smt. Kanti Shyam

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.23 13:16:04 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:16212

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 657 of 2023

¶7

1 - Durgesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Hadaru Singh Aged About 14 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Meena Kumari Wd/o Late Shri Hadaru Singh Caste Gond R/o Village Dadar, Lafa, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (C.G.) At Present Village Beltara, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Meena Kumari Wd/o Late Shri Hadaru Singh Aged About 55 Years Caste Gond R/o Village Dadar, Lafa, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (C.G.) At Present Village Beltara, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Smt. Kanti Shyam W/o Ashok Kumar Shyam Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Dadar, Lafa, Post Lafa, Tahsil And Police Station Pali, District Korba (C.G.) (Driver And Owner Of The Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 12 Al 6320)

¶12

2 - Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Through Local Branch Vyapar Vihar, Main Road, Near Vinayak Netralay Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 12 Al 6320)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

2

¶15

For Appellants	: Shri Anand Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondent No.2	: Ms. Jasleen Gulati, Advocate on
	behalf of Shri Ghanshyam Patel,
	Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: None despite service

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

08/04/2026

¶19

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) calls in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 5.1.2023 passed by the 5^th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.258 of 2021.

¶20

2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,28,672 on account of death of Dilesh Kumar in an accident that occurred on 25.5.2020 by rash and negligent driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle tractor bearing registration No.CG 12 AL 6320 driven by Ashok Kumar Shyam, i.e. husband of respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2.

¶21

3. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 18 years. He was a carpenter. He was earning Rs.25,000 per month. He met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle which resulted into his

¶22

3

¶23

death. Total compensation of Rs.81,90,000 was claimed.

¶24

4. Respondent No.1 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and remained ex parte .

¶25

5. Respondent No.2/insurance company denied the averments of the claim application. The insurance company also pleaded that the deceased was travelling in the o昀昀ending vehicle tractor as a helper in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. No additional premium was accepted by the insurance company for travelling of a helper in the said tractor. On the date of accident, the tractor was being driven for commercial purpose.

¶26

6. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation.

¶27

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was aged about 18 years. He was a carpenter and earning Rs.25,000 per month. The appellants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Thus, this Court can safely assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.25,000, which the learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding to Rs.8,060 per month. Learned counsel prays that a suitable enhancement may be made in the compensation.

¶28

4

¶29

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company supports the impugned award. She submits that no documentary evidence is brought on record to support the profession and income of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased rightly and has awarded just compensation. She submits that no interference is warranted.

¶30

9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with due care.

¶31

10. According to the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 18 years. He was a carpenter and earning Rs.25,000 per month. Appellant No.1 is minor brother of the deceased and appellant No.2 is mother of the deceased. They were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Taking into consideration all aspects of the matter and the evidence available on record, the minimum wages prevailing, age of the deceased and number of dependents, this Court can safely assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.9,000.

¶32

11. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner:

¶33

5

¶34

Sl.	Particulars	Amount
No.		(Rs.)
1	Annual Income (Rs.9,000 x 12 =)	1,08,000
2	Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,08,000 x 40% Future Prospects = Rs.43,200; Rs.1,08,000 + Rs.43,200 =)	1,51,200
3	Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.1,51,200 / 2 = Rs.75,600; Rs.1,51,200 – Rs.75,600 =)	75,600
4	Loss of Dependency after Application of Multiplier (Rs.75,600 x 18 =)	13,60,800
5	Funeral Expenses	15,000
6	Loss of Estate	15,000
7	Loss of Love and A昀昀ection to	40,000
	Brother/Appellant No.1 昀
8	Loss of Love and A昀昀ection to	40,000
	Mother/Appellant No.2
	Total Compensation =	14,70,800
(-) C	ompensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = Enhancement in Compensation =	13,28,672 1,42,128

¶35

12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.1,42,128. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of 昀椀ling of the instant appeal, i.e., 25.4.2023 till 昀椀nal payment of the enhanced compensation. The order of the Claims Tribunal with regard to pay and recover is maintained. Respondent No.2/insurance company is directed to 昀椀rst deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with the interest within a period

¶36

6

¶37

of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the insurance company shall recover the deposited amount from the owner and driver of the o昀昀ending vehicle. On the deposit being made by the insurance company, the Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders regarding apportionment, investment and disbursement of the amount. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶38

13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modi昀椀ed to the extent shown above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Gopal

Durgesh Kumar v. Smt. Kanti Shyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgesh Kumar v. Smt. Kanti Shyam

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

Smt. Fuleshwari Bai Vs Kishunram Mandawi

Ramsingh Kashyap Vs Dullu Ram Yadav

Mongrabai Yadav Vs Shyam Sundar Sharma

Dinesh Kumar Dharmik Vs Bank of India

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Munkunadas Vs Manoj Kumar