[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mohd. Azharuddin Ansari vs Praveen Kumar Vastrakar on 22 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:18353
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1602 of 2019
Mohd. Azharuddin Ansari S/o Mohd. Khalil Aged About 19 Years R/o
Butapara, Deorikhurd, P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.............(Applicant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
Digitally
SAIFAN signed by
KHAN SAIFAN Versus
KHAN
1 - Praveen Kumar Vastrakar S/o Shri Ramadhar Vastrakar R/o Village
Paraghat, Jairam Nagar, P.S. Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,
Through The Owner Of The Vehicle Govind Bagde, Aged About 44
Years, S/o Late Dev Rao Bagde, R/o Hemu Nagar, Ward No. 43,
Ganpati Chowk, Near Sai Mandir, Behind Narayani Plot, Hemu Nagar,
P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh............(Driver Of
The Vehicle), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Govind Bagde S/o Late Dev Raj Bagde Aged About 44 Years R/o
Hemu Nagar, Ward No. 43, Ganpati Chowk, Near Sai Mandir, Behind
Narayani Plot, Hemu Nagar, P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh...........(Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. Ground Floor, Vanijya
Bahawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through
Branch Office At V.R. Plaza, Near Deep Hotel, Link Raod, Bilaspur,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.........(Insurer Of The Vehicle)............
(Non-Applicants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
(Order on Board)
22.04.2026
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. 04.05.2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a
total sum of Rs.4,46,483/- as compensation to the claimant.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant 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.36000/- (for six months) which should be Rs.46,560/-
(for six months) as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification
issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further,
on the heads of pain and suffering, conveyance, special diet, attendant
and future medical treatment, less amount has been awarded, which
needs to be enhanced suitably. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed
and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be
enhanced.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company would
submit that the appellant have failed to prove nature of occupation and
income of the claimant by producing clinching and admissible piece of
evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of the
claimant 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 claimant
to be Rs.36000/- (for six months), 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.46,560/- (for six months) (as per minimum
wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, no amount on the head of
attendant has been awarded and, even, the amount awarded on the
heads of pain and suffering, conveyance, special diet and future
medical treatment are also on lower side. As such, in the opinion of this
Court, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced suitably.
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. Loss of Income Rs.36000/- (for Rs.46,560/- (for
six months) six months)
2 Medical Bills Rs.3,25,483/- Rs.3,25,483/-
3. Pain & Suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
4. Conveyance & Special Diet Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/-
5. Attendant NIL Rs.30,000/-
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130
6. Future medical treatment Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.4,46,483/- Rs.6,29,543/-
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
Rs.4,46,4483/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.6,29,543/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.4,46,483/-, the
appellant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,83,060/-. 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 @ 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.
s@if
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
