[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dashru Ram Markam vs Puranik Lal Deshmukh on 7 April, 2026
1
MAC No. 32 of 2020
2026:CGHC:15744
ANKIT
KUMAR
NAFR
SINGH
Digitally signed HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
by ANKIT
KUMAR
SINGH
MAC No. 32 of 2020
1. Dashru Ram Markam S/o Shri Cheru Markam, Aged About 42 Years,
Caste-Gond, Occupation- Unemployed;
2. Smt. Pramila Markam W/o Shri Dashru Ram Markam, Aged About 34
Years, Caste-Gond, Occupation- Housewife;
Both Resident of Ward No. 13, Village- Kanglutola, Post- Gotatola P.S.
And Tahsil - Mohla, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
1. Puranik Lal Deshmukh S/o Shri Kedar Singh Deshmukh, Aged About
35 Years, Occupation- Driver, R/o Village- Deori (B) And Post -
Vinayakpur, P.S. And Tahsil - Gunderdehi, District-Balod Chhattisgarh.
49122 (Driver of the Water Tanker vehicle No. CG -07-C-4780).
2. Amar Infrastructure Limited And Amar Builders (Near Jainam Palace
Pulgaon- Durg) Through The Director- Surendra Rathi, S/o Lalchand
Rathi, Aged About 47 Years, Occupation- Businessman, R/o Mahesh
Colony Pulgaon, P.S.- Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
(Driver of the Water Tanker vehicle No. CG -07-C-4780).
3. National Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager,
Branch Office - Kamthi Line Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District-
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Insurare of the Water Tanker vehicle No.
CG -07-C-4780).
... Respondents
For Appellants :- Mr. Raman Patel, Advocate, appears on behalf
of Mr. S. S. Baghel, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate, appears on behalf
of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
07.04.2026
1. 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 13.02.2019 passed by the 2 nd Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
(for short "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 83/2018 whereby
learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants' application and
awarded a sum of ₹9,37,200/- as compensation along with interest
for death of Sheshnarayan Markam.
2. Mr. Raman Patel, 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
₹6,000/- per month which should be ₹7,930/- per month as per
Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the
Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would also submit that
amount under the head of consortium has not been given to the
claimants. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed
and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably
be enhanced.
3. Ms. Pooja Yadav, 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.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein above and gone through the records
meticulously.
5. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to
be ₹6,000/- 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 ₹7,930/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at
relevant time) and ₹95,160/- per annum. Furthermore, the Claims
Tribunal has not awarded amount under the head of consortium
which is liable to be awarded. As such, the compensation amount is
liable to be enhanced.
6. 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 Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3, this Court is computing the
compensation as below:-
Sr. Heads Compensation awarded Compensation awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
No.
1. Income ₹6,000 x 12 = ₹ ₹7,930x 12 = ₹95,160/-
72,000/-
2. Future (+) 40% = ₹28,800/-; (+) 40% = ₹38,064/-;
Prospect Total = Total = ₹95,160+38,064=
₹72,000+28,800= ₹1,33,224/-
₹1,00,800/-
3. Deduction (-) ½ = ₹50,400/-; (-) ½ = ₹66,612/-;
₹1,00,800-50,400 = ₹1,33,224-66,612=
₹50,400/- (total income) ₹66,612/- (total income)
4. Multiplier (x) 18 = ₹9,07,200/- (x) 18 = ₹11,99,016/-
5. Loss of Estate ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
6. Funeral ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
Expenses
7. Consortium NIL ₹40,000 x 2 =
₹80,000/-
8. Total ₹9,37,200/- ₹13,09,016/-
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
₹9,37,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
₹13,09,016/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹9,37,200/-,
the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional
amount of ₹3,71,816/-. The concerned respondent is directed to
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
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
@7% 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.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is
modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Ankit
