Smt. Subasho Vs Bali Prasad Yadav

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:839

¶3

JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.01.09 10:53:16 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 683 of 2018

¶7

1. Smt. Subasho W/o Late Rajesh Singh Aged About 20 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Sahanpur, P.S. And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. Murali Singh S/o Koden Aged About 44 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Sahanpur, P.S. And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. Smt. Tilasho W/o Murali Singh Aged About 42 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Sahanpur, P.S. And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellant(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1. Bali Prasad Yadav S/o Jagropan Prasad Yadav Aged About 38 Years Occupation Owner Of Vehicle, R/o Village Sahanpur P.S. And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager Manendragarh Road Near Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Akanksha Vishwakarma on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate

¶15

For Respondent(s) No. 2 : Mr. N. K. Malaviya, Advocate

¶16

2

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

07/01/2026

¶20

The present is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, filed by the claimants assailing the award dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G. in Case No. 18/W.C.ACT/2013 (fatal). The present appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancing the compensation amount.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that, claimants filed an application for grant of compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Act of 1923’), stating inter alia that, Rajesh Singh (deceased) was husband of claimant No. 1 and son of claimants No. 2 and 3. He was working as driver of Pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. U.P. 64/H/5161 owned by Bali Prasad Yadav (respondent No.1 herein). On 26.09.2010, at around 11.30 pm bear Chachi village on a bend over the Gagar river, the bright headlight of an unknown vehicle coming from the opposite direction blinded the deceased and he tried to steer the vehicle to the side of the road, the steering failed and the vehicle veered off the road, colliding with a tree and overturning. It is further pleaded that Rajesh Singh sustained fatal injuries to his head, eyes, hands, shoulders, chest and others parts of his body and during

¶22

3

¶23

treatment he died. It is further pleaded that while the accident occurred the aforesaid vehicle was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. at the relevant time. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 23 years and therefore, they sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,10,000/- from non-applicants, by filing application before the Labour Court.

¶24

Respondent No. 1, the owner of the vehicle, has filed his reply admitting that he is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. UP 64 H 5161, while denying all other averments made in the claim application. It is further averred that respondent No. 1 had duly appointed one Shantilal, son of Jeetlal Kumhar, as the driver of the said vehicle and had sent him on 25.09.2010 to transport goods from Ambikapur to Garhwa in the pickup vehicle. After unloading the goods at Garhwa, the driver was returning to village Sahjanpur when the accident occurred due to the sudden collapse of the road near the Gagar River. According to the respondent No. 1 he has no knowledge as to when and how the deceased Rajesh boarded the vehicle and prayed that the claim application against respondent No. 1 be dismissed with costs.

¶25

Insurance company/ respondent No. 2 has also filed a written reply to the application, wherein all the allegations made by the applicants have been specifically denied. It is further averred that the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident committed serious violations of the terms and conditions of the vehicle’s

¶26

4

¶27

registration, fitness certificate, and insurance policy. The vehicle in question, a pickup truck bearing engine No. CG 91N87075 and chassis No. 91M69366, was insured in the name of respondent No. 1 for the period from 25.12.2009 to 24.12.2010. According to the Insurance Company on the date of the accident, the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license. In view of the aforesaid breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the application be dismissed with costs.

¶28

On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Labour Court framed as many as 8 issues, recorded evidence of both the parties and vide impugned award, awarded compensation amount of Rs. 3,29,925/- and directed respondents to pay aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days to the claimants, else it shall carry interest of 12% per annum till its final payment.

¶29

The instant appeal filed by the appellants by framing the following substantial question of law :-:

¶30

Whether, the learned labour court assess (sic assists) the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month as per minimum wages?

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the assessment of monthly wages at 3,000 is erroneous and ₹

¶32

5

¶33

contrary to the material on record. It is submitted that considering the nature of work and prevailing wages at the relevant time, the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at 4,000. It is further submitted that the ₹ age of the deceased being 23 years, the relevant factor as per Schedule IV is 219.95, and the compensation requires recalculation.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned award and submits that no interference is warranted.

¶35

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is not disputed that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 23 years. As per Schedule IV of the Employees’ Compensation Act, the relevant factor applicable for the said age is 219.95.

¶36

As regards the monthly wages, this Court finds that the assessment made by the Commissioner at 3,29,925/- is on the ₹ lower side. Considering the nature of employment and the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time, the monthly income of the deceased deserves to be reasonably assessed at ₹ 4,000.

¶37

In view of Section 4(1)(a) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, in a case of death, compensation is required to be

¶38

6

¶39

calculated at 50% of the monthly wages multiplied by the relevant factor.

¶40

Accordingly, the compensation is recalculated accepting the wages of the deceased to be Rs. 4,000/-, 50% of which would be Rs. 2,000/- which if multiplied by applying the factor of 219.95 it would reach to 4,39,900 instead of Rs. 3,29,925 as ₹ awarded by the learned Commissioner. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest as provided under Section 4A of the Act from the date the compensation fell due till its actual payment @ 12%.

¶41

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . The impugned award dated 11.01.2018 is modified to the extent that the compensation payable is enhanced from ₹ 3,29,925 to ₹ 4,39,900. The enhanced amount shall carry statutory interest in accordance with law.

¶42

No order as to costs.

¶43

Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶44

Jyoti

Smt. Subasho v. Bali Prasad Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Subasho v. Bali Prasad Yadav

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

Smt. Lalmani Vs Harshvardhan

Ghasnin Vs Khel Kumar

Harsukhlal And Ors. Vs Smt.sumitra Devi Charasia And Anr.

Amar Singh Vs Smt. Shivkantibai (Died) Though Legal Heirs

Jageshwar Vs Sukhcharan

Smt. Ratna Vaishnav Vs Smt. Shakuntala Bai