Chattisgarh High Court
Devsai Ram vs Rupesh Vishwakarma on 12 March, 2026
-1-
2026:CGHC:11811
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 606 of 2020
1 - Devsai Ram S/o Late Sindhu Bhagat Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Patratoli
(Rupsera), Tahsil Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Sanjita Bai S/o Devsai Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Patratoli (Rupsera),
Tahsil Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Surjan Ram S/o Devsai Ram Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Patratoli (Rupsera),
Tahsil Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Minor Subendar Ram S/o Devsai Ram Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Next
Friend Namely Appellant No. 02 Sanjita Bai Their Sister, R/o Village Patratoli
(Rupsera), Tahsil Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
5 - Minor Bindeshwar Ram S/o Devsai Ram Aged About 15 Years Minor Through
Next Friend Namely Appellant No. 2 Namely Sanjita Bai, Their Sister , R/o Village
Patratoli (Rupsera), Tahsil Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 - Rupesh Vishwakarma S/o Shri Sarju Vishwakarma Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward
No. 14, House No. 60, Near Kali Mandir, Pump House Korba, District Korba
Chhattisgarh . (Driver And Owner), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
2 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited Address Ground Flore,
Commercial Building , Devendra Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurar),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Adv.
For respondent No.2/Insurance : Mr. Rahul Singh Thakur, Advocate Company holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma,Adv Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.03.2026
1) Heard.
-2-
2) Admit.
3) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
4) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation assailing the judgment and award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.27/2019 dated 23.12.2019 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.8,29,375/- with interest @ 6 % per annum on account of death of Sarita Bai.
5) Mr. Patel would submit that Sarita Bai, aged about 40 years, met with an accident on 10.02.2019 as the offending vehicle Maruti bearing registration No.C.G.12/AW/6468 dashed her, resultantly, she sustained injuries and succumbed to death. Mr. Patel would further submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed income of deceased Rs.4,500/- per month, whereas, the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Tribunal should have considered that figure while computing the income part. He would contend that the learned Tribunal failed to grant filial consortium to claimants No.2 to 5 who are the children of the deceased. He would fairly submit that on other heads, learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.
6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Patel. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the claimants failed to prove income of -3- deceased and thus, appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
8) The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month but they could not adduce cogent evidence to prove income of deceased, therefore, learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled laborour in the month of February, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- per month and the learned Tribunal should have considered that figure while computing the compensation. Further, learned Tribunal should have granted filial consortium to the claimants No. 2 to 5 as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.
9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below:
Sr. Heads Compensation awarded by Compensation awarded by No. Tribunal this Court
1. Income Rs.4,500x12= Rs.54,000/- Rs.8140 x 12 = Rs.97,680/-
2. Future Prospect 25% of 54,000 = 13,500/- 25% of 97,680 = 24,420/-
54,000 + 13,500 = 67,500 97,680 + 24,420=1,22,100/-
3. Deduction (-) ¼ of 67,500 =Rs. 16,875 (-) ¼ of 1,22,100= 30,525 67,500 - 16,875 =50,625/- 1,22,100 - 30,525 = 91,575 -4-
4. Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs. 7,59,375/- (x) 15 =Rs. 13,73,625/-
5. Other heads- Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/-
loss of Consortium (for appellant No.1/wife)
6. Loss of consortium Nil Rs.40,000 x 4 = 1,60,000/-
for appellants No.2 to 5
7. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
8. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
9. Total Rs. 8,29,375/- Rs. 16,03,625/-
10) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.8,29,375/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.16,03,625/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.8,29,375/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.7,74,250/-. 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 remain intact.
11) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha