[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Bablu Dewangan vs Vifal @ Prakash Vishwakarma on 15 April, 2026
1
Digitally 2026:CGHC:17151
SAIFAN signed by
KHAN SAIFAN
KHAN
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 999 of 2019
1 - Bablu Dewangan S/o Late Hiralal Dewangan Aged About 30 Years
R/o Village Raisara, Police Station And Tahsil Jhilmili, District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Santlal Dewangan S/o Late Hiralala Dewangan Aged About 38 Years
R/o Village Raisara, Police Station And Tahsil Jhilmili, District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Smt. Kalawati Dewangan D/o Late Hiralal Dewangan Aged About 25
Years R/o Village Raisara, Police Station And Tahsil Jhilmili, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
Versus
1 - Vifal @ Prakash Vishwakarma S/o Shri Fulsai Vishwakarma Aged
About 20 Years R/o Village Pandari, Khalpara, Police Station And Tahsil
Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Raju Vishwakarma S/o Shri Fulsai Vishwakarma Aged About 25
Years R/o Village Pandari, Khalpara, Police Station And Tahsil
Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office
Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Non
Applicant No. 3), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants : Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. HP Agrawal, Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
(Order on Board)
15.04.2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants seeking
enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned
award dt. 14.02.2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a
total sum of Rs.3,56,700/- as compensation for the death of Hiralal
Dewangan, who was aged about 52 years on the date of occurrence.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned
Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in
the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of
deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month which should be Rs.7,800/- as per
Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the
Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, learned Claims Tribunal
also erred in awarding less amount on the head of loss of consortium,
loss of estate and funeral expense. Therefore, the instant appeal be
allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may
suitably be enhanced.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the
appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of the
deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence,
hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on
notional basis. 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 went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
5. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of
deceased to be Rs.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 Rs.7,800/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed
at relevant time). Further, on the heads of funeral expenses and loss of
estate Rs.15,000/- each has been awarded, whereas it ought to have
been Rs.18000/- each and on the heads of loss of consortium to each
of the appellants no amount has been awarded, but it ought to have
been awarded Rs.48,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,44,000/-.
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 Compensation
No. awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1. Income Rs.4500/- x 12 = Rs.7800/- x 12 =
Rs.54,000/- Rs.93,600/-
2. Future Prospect (+) 10% (i.e. (+) 10% (i.e. Rs.
Rs.5400/-) = 9360/-)
Rs.59,400/- = Rs.1,02,960/-
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130
3. Deduction (-) 1/2 = Rs. (-) 1/2 =
29,700/- Rs.51,480/-
4. Multiplier (x) 11 = (x) 11 =
Rs.3,26,700/- Rs.5,66,280/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,000/-
6. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,000/-
7. Loss of Consortium NIL Rs.48,000/- x 3 =
Rs.1,44,000/-
Total Rs.3,56,700/- Rs.7,46,280/-
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
Rs.3,56,700/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.7,46,280/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,56,700/-, the
appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,89,580/-.
The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of
compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 16.05.2018 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
s@if
