[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Ramkumari vs Kailash Kumar on 10 April, 2026
1
MAC No. 456 of 2019
2026:CGHC:16617
Digitally
ANKIT signed
KUMAR by
ANKIT
NAFR
SINGH KUMAR
SINGH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 456 of 2019
1. Smt. Ramkumari Wd/o Gainduram Jagat, Aged About 40 Years;
2. Vinod Kumar Jagat S/o Gainduram Jagat, Aged About 22 Years;
3. Anil Kumar Jagat S/o Gainduram Jagat, Aged About 20 Years;
All are R/o Village Kureli, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellants
versus
1. Kailash Kumar S/o Jagdish Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, Chananvar,
Police Station - Khaira, District - Jamaui Bihar, Present Address -
Pragati Nagar, Deepka, Tehsil - Katghora, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh (Driver).
2. Amit Kukreja S/o Kishan Chand Aged About 35 Years, R/o Station
Road, Satkar Gali, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur. Chhattisgarh
(Owner).
3. The New India Insurance Company, Through Branch Manager,
Address - Second Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opp. - Rajeev Plaza, Old
Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance
Company).
--- Respondents
For Appellants :- Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate, appears on
behalf of Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
10.04.2026
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 29.09.2018 passed by the 3 rd Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh (for short "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 441/2015
whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants'
application and awarded a sum of ₹7,00,000/- as compensation
along with interest for death of Genduram Jagat, whereas, the
Insurance Company has filed the cross objection challenging the
legality, validity and correctness of the aforesaid impugned award by
which the Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the
Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants
2. Mr. Sahdev Yadav, learned counsel for the claimants/appellant, 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 ₹4,500/- per month which should be ₹5,787/- per
month as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by
the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would
further submit that under the head of consortium 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. Animesh Verma, learned counsel for the owner/respondent No.3,
would submit that the owner is not liable to pay the compensation to
the claimants.
4.Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would
submit that driver of the offending vehicle did not have the valid and
effective driving licence to ply the vehicle and the particulars of the
driving licence which was not submitted before the Claims Tribunal
was not legible, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider it
properly. Furthermore, he would submit that the amount of
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper
which does not call for any interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein above and gone through the records
meticulously.
6.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Claims
Tribunal at para 17 of the impugned award has clearly recorded a
finding that the Insurance Company has failed to produce any
clinching evidence in support of its plea that the driver of the
offending vehicle did not have the valid and effective driving licence.
As such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the
Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants which
in my considered opinion is correct finding of fact based on evidence
available on record.
7. Furthermore, learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of
deceased to be ₹4,500/- 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 ₹5,787/- (as per minimum wages prescribed
at relevant time) and ₹69,444/- per annum. Furthermore, the
Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount under the head of
consortium which is liable to be awarded and enhanced. As such, the
compensation amount is liable to be enhanced.
8.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
(2017) 16 SCC 680
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 ₹4,500x12 = ₹ 54,000/- ₹5787x12 = ₹69,444/-
2. Future (+) 25% = 13,500/- (+) 25% =17,361/-
Prospect Total = ₹54,000+13,500= Total = ₹69,444+17,361=
₹67,500/- ₹86,805/-
3. Multiplier (x) 14 = ₹9,45,000/- (x) 14 = ₹12,15,270/-
4. Deduction (-)1/3 = ₹3,15,000/-; (-)1/3 = ₹4,05,090/-;
₹9,45,000-3,15,000= ₹12,15,270-4,05,090=
₹6,30,000/- ₹8,10,180/-
5. Loss of Estate ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
6. Funeral ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
Expenses
7. Consortium ₹40,000/- ₹1,20,000/-
8. Total ₹7,00,000/- ₹9,60,180/-
9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
₹7,00,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
₹9,60,180/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹7,00,000/-,
the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional
amount of ₹2,60,180-. 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
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
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.
10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part and
the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-
above and the cross objection of the Insurance Company is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Ankit
