Smt. Sunita Nirmalkar vs Dhanraj Rajput
2026 Latest Caselaw 1434 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1434 Chatt
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Sunita Nirmalkar vs Dhanraj Rajput on 8 April, 2026

MAC No. 996 of 2019

2026:CGHC:16087
NAFR
ANKIT
KUMAR
SINGH
Digitally signed
by ANKIT
KUMAR SINGH HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MAC No. 996 of 2019
1. Smt. Sunita Nirmalkar Wd/o Late Panchram Nirmalkar, Aged About
37 Years;
2. Kishan Kumar S/o Late Panchram Nirmalkar, Aged About 17 Years;
3. Miss Suman Nirmalkar D/o Late Panchram Nirmalkar, Aged About 14
Years;
Appellants No.2 & 3 are minor Through Appellant No.1 Natural
Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Nirmalkar,
All are R/o Ramnagar Tikaripara Takhatpur District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellants
versus
1. 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.
2. The Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited E-8 E. P. I. P. Ricko
Seetapura Jaipur Rajasthan............Insurer.
--- 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.

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 08.04.2026

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 31.10.2013 passed by the 3 rd Additional

Member to the Court of 1st 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

the claimants' application and awarded a sum of ₹3,34,000/- as

compensation along with interest for death of Kushal Nirmalkar.

2. 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. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants

deserves to be allowed and the compensation awarded by the

Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

3. 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.

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 ₹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

deceased. 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 & Ors3, this Court is computing the

compensation as below:-

Sr. Heads Compensation awarded Compensation awarded by the Tribunal by this Court No.

1. Income ₹3,000x12 = ₹ 36,000/- ₹4,277x 12 = ₹51,324/-

2. Future NIL (+) 40% = ₹20,529/-;

               Prospect                               Total = ₹51,324+20,529=
                                                      ₹71,853/-
        3.     Deduction     (-) ½ = ₹18,000/-;       (-) 1/3 = ₹23,951/-;
                             ₹36,000-18,000=          ₹71,853-23,951=