[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Meena Koushik vs Laxman Patel on 7 April, 2026
1
MAC No. 1289 of 2019
2026:CGHC:15745
NAFR
Digitally
ANKIT signed
KUMAR by
ANKIT
SINGH KUMAR
SINGH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1289 of 2019
1. Smt. Meena Koushik W/o Late Ghanshyam Koushik, Aged About 45
Years;
2. Chandresh Koushik S/o Late Ghanshyam Koushik, Aged About 26
Years;
3. Suryesh Kumar Koushik S/o Late Ghanshyam Koushik, Aged About 24
Years;
All R/o Village - Nagoi Thana And Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh. (Claimants).
... Appellants
versus
1. Laxman Patel S/o Anujram Patel, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Surda
Thana - Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The
Offending Vehicle Pickup No. C.G. 10/A.A./9597).(Driver).
2. Rajkumar Gandharv S/o Late Kishun Lal Gandharv, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Village - Lagara, Tahsil - Lormi, District Mungeli
(Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup No. C.G.
10/A.A./9597). (Owner).
3. Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch
Office, Rama Tred Center 2nd Floor In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Thana -
Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer
Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup No. C.G. 10/A.A./9597). (Insurer).
... Respondents
For Appellants :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, appears on
behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal,
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 12.03.2019 passed by the 5 th Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh (for short "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 717/2016
whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants'
application and awarded a sum of ₹6,40,800/- as compensation
along with interest for death of Ghanshyam Koushik.
2. Mr. A.L. Singroul, 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 ₹7,000/- per month as per
Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the
Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that
amount under the heads of funeral expenses, loss of estate and
consortium less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be
enhanced.
3. Ms. Swati Agrawal, 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 ₹7,000/- and ₹84,000/- per annum.
Furthermore, the Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount under the
heads of funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium which is
liable to be enhanced. 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 = ₹ ₹7,000x 12 =
72,000/- ₹84,000/-
2. Future (+) 10% = ₹7,200/-; Total (+) 10% = ₹8,400-; Total
Prospect = ₹72,000+7,200= = ₹84,000+8,400
₹79,200/- ₹92,400/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/3 = ₹26,400/-; (-) 1/3 = ₹30,800/-;
₹79,00-26,400 = ₹92,400-30,800=
₹52,800/- (total income) ₹61,600/- (total income)
4. Multiplier (x) 11 = ₹5,80,800/- (x) 11 = ₹6,77,600/-
5. Loss of Estate ₹10,000/- ₹16,500/-
6. Funeral ₹10,000/- ₹16,500/-
Expenses
7. Consortium ₹40,000/- ₹44,000 x 3 =
₹1,32,000/-
8. Total ₹6,40,800/- ₹8,42,600/-
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
₹6,40,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
₹8,42,600/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹6,40,800/-,
the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional
amount of ₹2,01,800/-. The concerned respondent is directed to
deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
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.
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
