[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Singh vs Nisar Khan on 22 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:18348
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1293 of 2023
1. Ram Singh S/o Late Udayram Markam (Khadiya) Aged About 20 Years R/o
Gram Panchayat Madhai, Chaparapara Ward No. 6, Thana Bango And Tahsil
Podi Uproda, District Korba (Chhattisgarh).
2. Minor Avdha S/o Late Udayram Markam (Khadiya) Aged About 17 Years
Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Phul Bai W/o Late Udayram
Markam (Khadiya) Now She Was Died. Now At Present Legal Guardian
Brother Ram Singh S/o Late Udayram Markam (Khadiya). R/o Gram
Panchayat Madhai, Chaparapara Ward No. 6, Thana Bango And Tahsil Podi
Uproda, District Korba (Chhattisgarh).
3. Minor Manisha Kumari D/o Late Udayram Markam (Khadiya) Aged About 13
Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Phul Bai W/o Late
Udayram Markam (Khadiya) Now She Was Died. Now At Present Legal
Guardian Brother Ram Singh S/o Late Udayram Markam (Khadiya). R/o
Gram Panchayat Madhai, Chaparapara Ward No. 6, Thana Bango And Tahsil
Podi Uproda, District Korba (Chhattisgarh).
4. Minor Panchram S/o Late Udayram Markam (Khadiya) Aged About 16 Years
Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Phul Bai W/o Late Udayram
Markam (Khadiya) Now She Was Died. Now At Present Legal Guardian
Brother Ram Singh S/o Late Udayram Markam (Khadiya). R/o Gram
Panchayat Madhai, Chaparapara Ward No. 6, Thana Bango And Tahsil Podi
Uproda, District Korba (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellants
versus
1. Nisar Khan S/o Nafir Khan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Chamrahi,
District Garhwa (Jharkhand). Hall Mukam Dhaskamuda, Thana Jobi Tahsil
(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 22/r/9032).
2. M/s Tanu Shri Logistics Pvt Ltd, Address Village Khapradih, Simga, Baloda
Bazar Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.
22/r/9032).
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Through Divisional Manager
Limited. Through Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Digitally
DEEPTI signed
by
JHA DEEPTI
JHA
2
Circle Office-Korba, Thana And Tahsil Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 22/r/9032).
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, counsel appears on
behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anmol Gupta, counsel appears on
behalf of Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
22/04/2026
1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2023, application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay
of 187 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. Also heard on admission.
4. Admit.
5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
6. This appeal arises out of the award dated 01.10.2022 (Annexure-A/1) passed
by Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") Katghora,
District Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 36/2020 awarding a compensation of
Rs. 11,30,600/- in favour of the appellants/claimants.
7. Facts of the case in brief are that on 26.04.2020 at about 4:30 PM at Village
Chotiya, Thana Bango, Tehsil Podi Uproda, District Korba (C.G.), respondent
No.1/driver of the offending vehicle Trailer bearing Registration No. CG-22-R-
9032 hit the motorcycle of Krupal Singh Khandiya. In the said accident, victim
Udayram Markam accompanied by Chatram Khandiya and Krupal Singh
Khandiya sustained injuries and succumbed to death. Criminal case was
registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.
8. With aforesaid facts, a claim petition was filed by the appellants/claimants
praying for compensation of Rs. 39,27,400/- on various heads. Pleadings of
the claimants have, however, been denied by the respondents.
9. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.11,30,600/- to the appellants/claimants as compensation as a whole and it
is this award which is under challenge in this appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that at the time of
incident deceased was aged about 42 years. He submits that though the
deceased being a mason was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, the Tribunal
has taken it at Rs. 6,048/- and thus committed an illegality in so doing. He
further submits that when the claim application was filed, wife of the
deceased was also a party, who also died during the pendency of appeal.
Now, the children are the only dependents upon the income of the deceased
and the learned Claims Tribunal awarded less compensation, which
requires suitable enhancement.
11. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No.3 has supported the award
impugned and submits that compensation as awarded by the learned Claims
Tribunal is just and proper, hence does not call for any interference by this
Court.
12. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record with utmost circumspection.
13. From the pleadings it is clear that the accident occurred with the offending
vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3 and was being driven by
respondent No.1. From the pleadings it is apparent that the deceased at the
time of filing of claim application there were 5 dependents upon the income of
the deceased. Learned Claims Tribunal took the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs. 6,048/- which in the considered opinion of this Court
appears to be inappropriate. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case available on record, nature of job; age of the
deceased at the time of accident and date of accident, monthly income of the
deceased is taken at Rs. 10,000/- and annual at Rs. 1,20,000/-.
14. In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the
matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court
recomputes the compensation in the following manner:-
Serial No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1 Annual Income 1,20,000
(Rs.10,000 x 12)
2 Income with Future Prospects 1,50,000
(Rs.1,20,000 x 25% Future
Prospects = Rs.30,000;
1,20,000 + 30,000 = 1,50,000
3 Income after Deduction 1,12,500
towards Personal Expenses of
the Deceased (Rs.1,50,000 / 4
= Rs.37,500; 1,50,000 -
37,500 = Rs.1,12,500)
4 Loss of Dependency after 16,87,500
applying Multiplier
(Rs.1,12,500 x 15 =
Rs.16,87,500)
5 Funeral Expenses 15,000
6 Loss of Estate 15,000
7 Consortium to wife 40,000
8 Filial and Parental Consortium 1,60,000
(Rs.40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000)
Total Compensation = 19,17,500
(-) Compensation Awarded by 11,30,600
the Claims Tribunal =
Enhancement in 7,86,900
Compensation =
15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be
entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.7,86,900/-. The
enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the instant appeal, i.e., 05.07.2023 till
realisation of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.3/insurance
company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced
by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- each shall be deposited as fixed deposit in the names of
appellants/claimants in a nationalized bank for a period of 2 years. On
deposit, learned Claims Tribunal shall pass an appropriate order regarding
the remaining amount with regard to the apportionment and disbursement
of the enhanced amount of compensation amongst the
appellants/claimants.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is
modified to the extent shown above.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Deepti Jha
