Smt. Sunita Nirmalkar Vs Dhanraj Rajput

Dhanraj Rajput S/o Bahadur Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dadabaid Ward No. 47 Q.No. 248 Police Station Dadabadi District Kota Rajasthan ...............Driver Cum Owner Of The Vehicle.

¶16

The Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited E-8 E. P. I. P. Ricko Seetapura Jaipur Rajasthan............Insurer.

¶17

--- Respondents For Appellants :- Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

¶18

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

¶19

08.04.2026

¶20

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

¶21

short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants,

¶22

2

¶23

MAC No. 996 of 2019

¶24

seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 31.10.2013 passed by the 3^rd Additional Member to the Court of 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 18/12 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed ₹ as the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of 3,34,000/compensation along with interest for death of Kushal Nirmalkar.

¶25

Mr. Abhishek Nirala, 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 3,000/- per month which should be 4,277/- per₹ ₹ month as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that future prospect has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be given to the claimants. Furthermore, the claimants are the widow mother, and the minor brother and sister of the deceased, therefore, the deduction should be 1/3 towards their personal expenses. He would further submit that under the heads of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal, which is liable to be enhanced. T herefore, the appeal filed by the claimants

¶26

3

¶27

MAC No. 996 of 2019

¶28

deserves to be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶29

Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would 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.

¶30

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

¶31

Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be 3,000/- 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 4,277/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at₹ relevant time) and 51,324/- per annum. Furthermore, the Claims₹ Tribunal has not awarded future prospect and also less amount awarded under the heads of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate amount under the head of consortium which is liable to be awarded and enhanced. Moreover, the deduction towards the personal expenses should be 1/3 in opinion of this Court as the claimants are the widow mother and minor brother and sister of the

¶32

4

¶33

MAC No. 996 of 2019

¶34

deceased. As such, the compensation amount is liable to be

¶35

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

¶37

compensation as below:-

¶38

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	3,0 ₹ 00x12 = 36,000/- ₹	4,277x 12 = 51,324/- ₹ ₹
2.	Future Prospect	NIL	(+) 40% = 20,529 ₹ /-; Total = 51,324+20,529= ₹ 71,853/- ₹
3.	Deduction	(-) ½ = 18,000/-; ₹ 36,000–18,000= ₹ 18,000/-(total income) ₹	(-) 1/3 = 23,951/-; ₹ 71,853-23,951= ₹ 47,902/-(total income) ₹
4.	Multiplier	(x) 18 = 3,24,000/- ₹	(x) 18 = 8,62,236/- ₹
5.	Loss of Estate	2,500/- ₹	18,000/- ₹
6.	Funeral Expenses	2,500/- ₹	18,000/- ₹
7.	Consortium	5,000/- ₹	44,000 x 3 = ₹ 1,32,000/- ₹
8.	Total	3,34,000 ₹ /-	10,30,236 ₹ /-

¶39

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of

¶40

₹3,34,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to

¶41

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶42

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶43

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶44

5

¶45

MAC No. 996 of 2019

¶46

₹10,30,236/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹3,34,000/- , the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹6,96,236/- . 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 @6% 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.

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶49

Ankit

Smt. Sunita Nirmalkar v. Dhanraj Rajput

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita Nirmalkar v. Dhanraj Rajput

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

Rahul Agariya Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav

Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mahendra Kumar Sahu

Dashru Ram Markam Vs Puranik Lal Deshmukh

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kamal Kumar Nayak

Ramanuj Vs Gyaniklal

Ashok Bhatia Vs Mangesh Kumar Salame