Dismissed

Shailendri Khandekar v. Tarbej Alam

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026MAC/762/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed the compensation award of the Insurance Company and dismissed an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal but found no merit in challenging the tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income and compensation quantum.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the appeal condoned; appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act dismissed at admission stage.

Shailendri Khandekar Vs Tarbej Alam — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010117082025

¶3

Digitally BHOLA signed byBHOLANATH NATH KHATAI KHATAI Date:2026.09.17 10:14:43 +0530

¶4

2026:CGHC:40431

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 762 of 2025

¶8

1 - Shailendri Khandekar Wd/o Late Arjunlal Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No.- 03, Paraghat, Jairamnagar, Police StationMasturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Yuvraj Khandekar S/o Late Arjunlal Aged About 12 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Appellant No. 01, Shailendri Khandekar, R/o Ward No.- 03, Paraghat, Jairamnagar, Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Srishti Khandekar D/o Late Arjunlal Aged About 9 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Appellant No. 01, Shailendri Khandekar, R/o Ward No.- 03, Paraghat, Jairamnagar, Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Shanti Bai Wd/o Late Sukhsagar Aged About 72 Years R/o Ward No.- 03, Paraghat, Jairamnagar, Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Appellant(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Tarbej Alam S/o Ravyum Miyan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Sarima, Post- Sihar, Tahsil- Samri, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle No.- C.G.-04-E.A.-0216)

¶15

2 - New Royal Trailers Proprietor- Saiyad Ajhan Ali, Shop No. 02, Pagriya Complex, New Bus Stand, Pandari, Raipur,

¶16

¶17

Chhattisgarh, S/o Late Tia Sahu, R/o House No.- 599 599, Sector 05-A, Balco Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle No.- C.G.-04-E.A.-0216) 3 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Gurukripa Tower, Near I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle No.- C.G.-04-E.A.-0216)

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶21

(16.09.2026)

¶22

1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶23

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶24

3. Upon due consideration, I.A. No.01/2025 is allowed and the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

¶25

4. Heard on admission.

¶26

5. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), vide impugned award dated 30.11.2024 passed in Claim Case No.624/2021, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a

¶27

¶28

total sum of 20,34,336/- as compensation on account of the₹ death of Arjun Khandekar, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 30.11.2020.

¶29

6. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal held that though it had been pleaded that the deceased was earning ₹18,000/- per month by working as a sanitation worker and labourer, no documentary evidence has been adduced on record to substantiate the said assertion. The Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹8,960/-, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded compensation under various heads as under:

¶30

S.N.	Head	Calculation
1	Loss of dependency	18,06,336
2	Loss of estate	18,000
3	Funeral Expenses	18,000
	Loss of consortium
4	(Rs.48,000 each to the four claimants)	1,92,000
	Total Awarded Amount	Rs.20,34,336

¶31

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and, therefore, warrants suitable enhancement.

¶32

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3– Insurance Company submits that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any further enhancement.

¶33

¶34

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and circumspection.

¶35

10. The accident occurred on 30.11.2020. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years. There are four claimants in the present case.

¶36

11. Thus, considering the date of accident, the age of the deceased, the number of dependants and the material available on record, the assessment made by the Claims Tribunal towards income, future prospects, personal expenses, multiplier and conventional heads does not call for any interference. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi¹ , Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors² and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors³ . Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference.

¶37

12. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed at admission stage.

¶38

13. No order as to costs.

¶39

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶40

Khatai

¶41