[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Vindhyabai Kosale vs Purshottam Chandrakar on 26 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:9938
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2298 of 2025
1. Smt. Vindhyabai Kosale W/o Late Surendra Kosale Aged About
30 Years R/o Village Gaurbhath Police Station Arang District-
Raipur (C.G.) (Claimants )
2. Minor Ku. Khileshwari Kosale D/o Late Surendra Kosale Aged
About 13 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt.
Vindhyabai Kosale ) R/o Village Gaurbhath Police Station Arang
District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. Minor Dushyant Kosale S/o Late Surendra Kosale Aged About 12
Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Vindhyabai
Kosale ) R/o Village Gaurbhath Police Station Arang District-
Raipur (C.G.)
4. Manikram Kosale S/o Late Jethuram Kosale Aged About 61 Years
R/o Village Gaurbhath Police Station Arang District- Raipur (C.G.)
5. Smt. Bhagabai Kosale W/o Manikram Kosale Aged About 56
Years R/o Village Gaurbhath Police Station Arang District- Raipur
(C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. Purshottam Chandrakar S/o Baldau Chandrakar Aged About 32
Years R/o Village Bemcha, Police Station And Tahsil
Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of Activa No.
C.G. -04-Pj-2963)
2. Nitesh Kumar Verma S/o Umashankar Verma Aged About 40
Years R/o Village Tikuliya Gandhi Chouk, Police Station
Bhatapara , District - Balaudabazar (C.G.) (Owner Of Activa No.
C.G. -04-Pj-2963)
3. Branch Manager The I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance
Company Ltd. Sky Park 5th Floor In Front Of Dr. Bhatiya Nursing
2
Home Canal Link Road, Civil Line Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) (
Insurer Of Activa No. C.G. -04-Pj-2963)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Gunjan Rani Agrawal, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
26.2.2026
1) Heard on I.A. No. 1, application for condonation of delay in filing
the appeal.
2) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimants have
preferred this appeal with delay of 234 days. He further submits
that claimants are poor persons residing in remote area and due
to paucity of funds, they could not prefer the appeal within
limitation. He prays to condone the delay.
3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Insurance
Company would oppose.
4) Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Kela and
the reasons assigned in application, I.A. No. 1 is allowed and
delay of 234 days caused in filing the instant appeal is hereby
condoned.
5) With consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.
6) By way of this appeal, claimants have challenged the award
passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mahasamund in Claim Case No. H-15/2024 dated 23.11.2024
whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.
22,60,160/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of
Surendra Kosale.
7) Facts of the present case are that on 24.10.2023, Surendra
Kosale was going from Arang to Village Haurabhata along with his
brother Sunil Kosale on motorcycle. When they reached Durga
Mandir, Village Goida at 10:00 pm, the offending vehicle -
HONDA Activa bearing registration No. CG-04-PJ-2963 being
driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle from
rear. In the accident, Surendra Kosale sustained grievous injuries
and died on spot. Claimants, who are the widow, minor children
and parents of deceased filed claim case claiming therein
compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,40,000/-. They pleaded that
age of the deceased was 32 years ; he was working as
Motorcycle Mechanic and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month.
Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and
thereafter, award was passed.
8) Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that
deceased was a mechanic and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per
month but learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income to
the tune of Rs. 10,100/- treating him to be an unskilled laborer
overlooking the clinching evidence led by the claimants. He prays
to modify the award accordingly.
9) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company would oppose. She submits that claimants failed to
prove that deceased was a mechanic and no documentary
evidence was led in this regard, therefore learned Tribunal rightly
arrived at the figure of Rs. 10,100/- on the basis of minimum wage
matrix applicable at the relevant time. She further submits that the
amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the
claimants cannot be said to be on lower side, rather it is just and
proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case and does
not call for any interference.
10) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties,
considered their rival submissions made herein above and
carefully perused the documents placed on record.
11) A careful perusal of record would show that claimants pleaded
that deceased was a mechanic. In evidence, Smt. Vidyabai
Kosale (AW/1), wife of deceased stated that her husband was a
motor mechanic and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month.
However, she admitted that she could not lead documentary
evidence to prove the same. Sunil Kosale (AW/2), brother of
deceased who was pillion rider proved the factum of motor
accident.
12) It is not in dispute that claimants failed to lead documentary
evidence to prove that deceased was motor mechanic i.e. a
skilled laborer. Thus, learned Tribunal considered the deceased to
be unskilled laborer and assessed the monthly income to the tune
of Rs. 10,100/- on basis of mimimum wage matrix applicable at
relevant time.
13) From the discussion made hereinabove, it is quite clear that no
evidence was led by the claimants to prove that deceased was a
mechanic. It is well settled principle of law that in absence of any
direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed
that the deceased was a skilled laborer, therefore learned Tribunal
rightly treated the deceased to be unskilled laborer.
14) Evidently, learned Tribunal granted 40% of established income
towards future prospect ; deducted 1/4 dependency towards
personal expenses of deceased and applied multiplier of 16
looking to age of deceased. Learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.
15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and
Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. In my opinion, learned
Tribunal awarded appropriate compensation under these heads.
15) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my
considered opinion, learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper
compensation and no case is made out for interference.
Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Ajinkya
