Smt. Kaleshwari Nirmalkar Vs Tulesh Vaishnav

Jaskamal S/o Late Tirithram Nirmalkar, Aged About 14 Years; Applicants No. 4 And 5 Minor Through Natural Guardian Appellant No. 1, Smt. Kaleshwari, All Are R/o Village - Karesara, Police Station City Kotwali Mungali, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Appellants

¶14

versus

¶15

Tulesh Vaishnav S/o Satyadev Vaishnav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Chatarkhar, Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Driver).

¶16

Santosh Kumar Vaishnav S/o Vidyavrt Vaishnav, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Javahar Ward, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Owner).

¶17

The Branch Manager Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor Glaxi Highgest, New I.C.I.C.I. Bank Vyapar Vihar, Basidesh Sanjay Apartment, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company).

... Respondents

2

MAC No. 94 of 2020

For Appellants :- Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate.

¶22

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board

¶23

07.04.2026

¶24

Though the matter was listed for order on mediation report, however, with the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶25

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 19.07.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 34/2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of 6,25,000/-₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Tirithram Nirmalkar.

¶26

Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present cases. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased 4,500/- per month which should be 7,930/- per₹ ₹ month as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by

¶27

3

¶28

MAC No. 94 of 2020

¶29

the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would also submit that future prospect has not been given to the claimants and also wrongly deducted 1/3. He would further submit that under the heads of consortium less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribuanal and under the head of loss of estate amount has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. T herefore, the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶30

Ms. Shrejal Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would submit oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the claimants and submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records meticulously.

¶32

Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be ₹4,500/- however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be 7,930/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at₹ relevant time) and 95,160/- per annum. Furthermore, the claims₹

¶33

4

¶34

MAC No. 94 of 2020

¶35

Tribunal has not awarded future prospect and loss of estate and also deduction 1/3 has wrongly been done by the Claims Tribunal. Moreover, under the heads of consortium less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is also liable to be enhanced. As such, the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced.

¶36

Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors 2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:-

¶37

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	₹4,500 x 12 =₹ 54,000/-	7,930x 12 = 95,160/- ₹ ₹
2.	Future Prospect	NIL	(+) 25% = 23,790 ₹ /-; Total = 95,160+23,790 = ₹ 1,18,950/- ₹
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/3 = 18,000/-; ₹ 54,000–18,000 = ₹ 36,000/-(total income) ₹	(-) 1/4 = 29.737/-; ₹ 1,18,950-29,737= ₹ 89,213/-(total income) ₹
4.	Multiplier	(x) 15 = 5,40,000/- ₹	(x) 15 = 13,38,195/- ₹
5.	Loss of Estate	NIL	15,000/- ₹
6.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/- ₹	15,000/- ₹

¶38

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶39

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶40

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶41

5

¶42

MAC No. 94 of 2020

¶43

7.	Consortium	70,000/- ₹	40,000 x 5 = ₹
			2,00,000/- ₹
8.	Total	₹6,25,000/-	15,68,195 ₹ /-

¶44

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹6,25,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹15,68,195/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹6,25,000/- , the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹9,43,195/- . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @9% 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.

¶45

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

¶46

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶47

Ankit

Smt. Kaleshwari Nirmalkar v. Tulesh Vaishnav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kaleshwari Nirmalkar v. Tulesh Vaishnav

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

K.P.Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mithila Yadav Vs Krishnachandra Pandey

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dhaniram Yadav

Dashru Ram Markam Vs Puranik Lal Deshmukh

Ratan Singh Sivana Vs Nirmal Kumar

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Nayantara Bhagat