Partly allowed¶37

Bedkumar v. Ghanshyam

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jan 2026MAC/807/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAC enhancement appeal, Chhattisgarh HC; death of Dayaram in 09.12.2017 collision (Bolero CG.04/LQ/8469 vs scooty); dependency upheld despite insurer's failure to rebut; income refixed at Rs.7,930/- p.m. (unskilled minimum wage, Dec 2017); 10% future prospects; 1/3 deduction; multiplier 9; filial consortium Rs.44,000 x 3; total Rs.7,90,056/-; additional Rs.4,92,456/- @ 6% interest; appeal allowed in part; award modified.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: compensation enhanced from Rs.2,97,600/- to Rs.7,90,056/-; appellants entitled to an additional Rs.4,92,456/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization; impugned award modified to that extent and the rest of its terms left intact. ¶37

Bedkumar Vs Ghanshyam — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants/claimants were dependents on the income of the deceased Dayaram. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The claimants were treated as dependents on the income of the deceased: the Insurance Company failed to raise dependency in cross-examination and examined no witness to establish that the claimants were major and not dependent on the deceased's income.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income at Rs.3,000/- per month was at the lower side; income ought to have been computed at Rs.7,930/- per month, the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in December 2017.

¶29

Key takeaways

Compensation for loss of filial consortium awarded by the Tribunal was at the lower side; it was enhanced to Rs.44,000/- per claimant for appellants Nos.1 to 3, i.e. Rs.1,32,000/- in all (Tribunal had allowed Rs.10,000 x 3 = Rs.30,000/-). Funeral expenses (Rs.15,000/-) and loss of estate (Rs.15,000/-) were retained.ratio¶29
On recomputation (income Rs.7,930 x 12, 10% future prospects, 1/3rd deduction, multiplier 9), the total compensation payable was worked out at Rs.7,90,056/-, enhancing the Tribunal's award of Rs.2,97,600/-.ratio¶34
After deducting the Rs.2,97,600/- already awarded, the appellants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.4,92,456/-, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of realization; the rest of the terms and conditions of the award remain intact.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, MAC No. 807 of 2021, decided 16.01.2026 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. (NAFR; neutral citation 2026:CGHC:2769). Enhancement appeal by the three children of Dayaram, who died when Bolero No.C.G.04/LQ/8469 dashed his scooty on 09.12.2017. The First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (Claim Case No.94/2018, award dated 06.09.2021) had assessed income at Rs.3,000/- per month, applied multiplier 9 and awarded Rs.2,97,600/- with 6% interest, having fastened liability on the owner and driver with the insurer to pay first and recover. Holding that the insurer had failed to rebut the claimants' dependency (no question in cross-examination, no witness examined), the Court refixed the deceased's income at the December 2017 minimum wage for an unskilled labourer (Rs.7,930/- p.m.), added 10% future prospects, deducted one-third, applied multiplier 9, and raised filial consortium to Rs.44,000/- per claimant (funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate Rs.15,000/- unchanged), totalling Rs.7,90,056/-. Appeal allowed in part: additional compensation of Rs.4,92,456/- with 6% interest from the date of application till realization; award otherwise intact.

-1-

2026:CGHC:2769

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 807 of 2021

¶6

1 - Bedkumar Sd/o Late Dayaram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Lamidih Post Sonasilli, Thana And Tahsil Pithaura, District Mahasmund Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Kumari Pushpa D/o Late Dayaram Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Lamidih Post Sonasilli, Thana And Tahsil Pithaura, District Mahasmund Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Vijay Kumar S/o Late Dayaram Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Lamidih Post Sonasilli, Thana And Tahsil Pithaura, District Mahasmund Chhattisgarh.

¶9

--- Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Ghanshyam S/o Meghva Sahu Aged About 38 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Sarora, Thana Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Aashish Sharma S/o Ramdas Sharma Aged About 40 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, Vehicle Bolero No. C.G. 04 L.Q 8469 Of Owner, R/o L.I.G. 118, Sector 2 Near Pass Port Office Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kachehari Chowk Jel Road Raipur Districtraipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Velhicle Bolero No. C.G. 04/ L.Q. 8469) ... Respondents

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For respondent No.3/Insurance : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

16.01.2026

¶18

Heard.

¶19

1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of

¶20

-2-

¶21

compensation assailing an award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No.94/2018 dated 06.09.2021 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,97,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Dayaram.

¶22

1. Mr. Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 60 years and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. He would further submit that on 09.12.2017 at about 10:30 a.m., Scooty of the deceased was dashed by offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.C.G.04/LQ/8469. He would contend that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month which is at lower side. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has not granted just and proper compensation on conventional heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶23

1. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Singroul. He would submit that the claimants could not prove the fact that they were dependents on the income of the deceased. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would contend that the learned Tribunal fastened liability with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award first and recover it from the

¶24

-3-

¶25

owner and driver of the offending vehicle. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

1. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶27

1. Admittedly, the claimants were major at the time of filing of claim petition. The claimants pleaded that they were dependent on the income of the deceased.

¶28

1. Dev Kumar Jangde (AW1) on affidavit stated that the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased. In cross-examination, the Insurance Company failed to put any question with regard to dependency. The Insurance Company further failed to examine any witness to establish the fact that the claimants were major and they were not dependent on the income of the deceased.

¶29

1. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- per month which is at lower side. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of December, 2017 was Rs.7,930/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of deceased. Further, learned Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.30,000/- for filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for loss of filial consortium appears to be at lower side.

¶30

-4-

¶31

1. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein

¶32

below:

¶33

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs.3000x12= Rs.36,000/-	Rs.7,930x12=Rs.95,160/-
2.	Future Prospect	10% of 36,000 = 3,600 36,000 + 3,600= 39,600	10% of 95,160 =9,516 95,160 + 9,516= 1,04,676/-
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/3 =Rs.13,200 39,600 – 13,200 = 26,400	(-) 1/3= 34,892/- 1,04,676 – 34,892 = 69,784
4.	Multiplier	(x) 9 = Rs. 2,37,600	(x) 9 =Rs. 6,28,056
5.	Other heads- loss of Consortium (for appellants No.1 to 3	Rs.10,000 x 3 = Rs.30,000	Rs.44,000 x 3= Rs.1,32,000
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
7.	Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
8.	Total	Rs. 2,97,600/-	Rs. 7,90,056/-

¶34

1. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,97,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.7,90,056/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,97,600/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,92,456/- . The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of award shall

¶35

-5-

¶36

remain intact.

¶37

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

¶38

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶39

Rekha

Bedkumar v. Ghanshyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bedkumar v. Ghanshyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth Vs Rajendra Kumar Sinha

Ram Chandra Sahu Vs Smt. Maya Devi

Dharmpal Kushwaha Vs Anil Kumar

Mahendra Bhoi Vs Hiralal Chauhan

Surendra Kumar (Minor) Vs Dhirendra Singh

Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Soceity Samity Maryadit Vs State Of Chhattisgarh