[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sangita Bai vs Tularam @ Bhola on 21 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
2026:CGHC:18119
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 876 of 2020
1 - Smt. Sangita Bai W/o Lt. Narendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 30
Years R/o Gokulnagar, Ward No. 18, P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.............Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Ku. Rani D/o Lt. Narendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 6 Years Minor
Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sangita Bai Aged About 30
Years, W/o Lt. Narendra Kumar Sahu, R/o Gokulnagar, Ward No. 18,
P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh..............Applicant,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Hariram S/o Lt. Shivraj Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Gokulnagar,
Ward No. 18, P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh..............Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Punni Bai W/o Hariram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Gokulnagar,
Ward No. 18, P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh................Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant (s)
versus
1 - Tularam @ Bhola S/o Lateldas Satnami, R/o Tihupara, Simga, P.O.
And P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh.................(Driver Of
Tractor Bearing No. C.G.-04-D-7897)...............Non-Applicant, District :
Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by
KRISHNA
KRISHNA KUMAR
KUMAR BARVE
BARVE Date:
2026.04.22
19:16:47
+0530
2
2 - Banshilal S/o Bhauram Sonkar, R/o. Sonkarpara, Simga, P.O. And
P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tractor
Bearing No. C.G.-04-D-7897)...........Non-Applicant, District :
Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
3 - Future Generaly India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through In Charge Officer
Future Generaly India Insurance Co. Ltd. Maruti Business Park, Near
Dhuppad Patrol Pump, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of
Tractor Bearing No. C.G.-04-D-7897)...........Non-Applicant, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Amit Prasad, S/o V. Prasad, R/o Shanti Residency, H.No.- 304,
Pachbedi Naka, Raipur, P.S. Tikrapara, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Car Bearing No. C.G.-10-F-9291)...........Non-
Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Smt. Divya Todekar W/o Amit Prasad, R/o Shanti Residency, H.No.-
304, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, P.S. Tikrapara, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Car Bearing No. C.G.-10-F-9291)..........Non-
Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Tata A.I.G. General India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through In Charge
Officer Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Lal Ganga Complex, G.E.
Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Car
Bearing No. C.G.-10-F-9291)..........Non-Applicant, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Gupta on behalf of Mr. Sourabh
No.3 & 6 Sharma, Advocate.
(Single Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
21/04/2026
1. The appellants/claimants have preferred this Appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act,
1988') calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of
the award dated 27.04.2019 passed by the 8 th Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal')
in Claim Case No.102/2015 by which liability to pay compensation
of Rs.9,26,800/- has been fastened on the respondents. In the
present Appeal, the appellants/claimants have prayed for
enhancement of the compensation amount.
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal was
not justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.4,000/- inasmuch as the deceased was working as driver and
used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month, whereas, as per minimum
wages at the relevant point of time, his monthly income should
have been assessed at Rs.5,163/-. As such, the impugned
award may be modified accordingly.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Saurabh Gupta, learned counsel for
respondent No.3 & 6 would support the impugned award.
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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the record, this Court is of the opinion that the Claims
Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas as per the minimum
wages at the relevant point of time, monthly income of the
deceased should have been assessed at Rs.5,163/-. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the
minimum wages at the relevant point of time, it would be
appropriate to enhance award amount by taking monthly income
of the deceased at Rs.5,163/-. As such, the claimants will be
entitled for the following compensation as computed by this
Court:-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Compensation
awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1. Loss of Income Rs.4,000/- x 12 = Rs.5,163/- x 12
Rs.48,000/- = Rs.61,956/-
2. Future prospects (+) 40% i.e. (+) 40% i.e.
19,200/- = Rs.24,782/- =
Rs.67,200/- Rs.86,738/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/4th i.e. (-) ¼ i.e.
Rs.16,800/- = Rs.21,685/- =
Rs.50,400/- Rs.65,053/-
4. Multiplier 17, = Rs.65,053/- x 17
Rs.8,56,800/- = Rs.11,05,901/-
5. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
7. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000 x 4 =
Rs.1,60,000/-
Total Rs.9,26,800/- Rs.12,95,901/-
6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
₹9,26,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
₹12,95,901/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹9,26,800/-,
the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of
₹3,69,101/-. It is made clear that 50% of the enhanced amount of
compensation shall be borne by respondent No.3/Insurance
Company and the remaining 50% amount shall be borne by
respondent No.6/Insurance Company. Let the enhanced amount
of compensation be paid within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 8% 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.
7. With the aforesaid modifications, the Appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Barve
