[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Elisba Tirkey vs Jagmohan Ram on 30 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14769
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
HARNEET
HARNEET KAUR
KAUR Date:
2026.04.01
11:07:54
+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 552 of 2020
1 - Smt. Elisba Tirkey Wd/o Late Ajay Tirkey Aged About 42
Years R/o Village And Post- Saraitoli, Tahsil- Manora, District-
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Pritam Tirkey S/o Late Ajay Tirkey Aged About 22 Years R/o
Village And Post- Saraitoli, Tahsil- Manora, District- Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Pinkey Tirkey D/o Late Ajay Tirkey Aged About 18 Years R/o
Village And Post- Saraitoli, Tahsil- Manora, District- Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Minor Priyashi Tirkey D/o Late Ajay Tirkey Aged About 16
Years Minor Through Guardian Her Mother Namely Smt. Elisba
Tirkey, The Appelant No. 1. R/o Village And Post- Saraitoli,
Tahsil- Manora, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Minor Priti Tirkey D/o Late Ajay Tirkey Aged About 14 Years
Minor Through Guardian Her Mother Namely Smt. Elisba Tirkey,
The Appelant No. 1. R/o Village And Post- Saraitoli, Tahsil-
Manora, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
2
6 - Minor Sonam Tirkey D/o Late Ajay Tirkey Aged About 10
Years Minor Through Guardian Her Mother Namely Smt. Elisba
Tirkey, The Appelant No. 1. R/o Village And Post- Saraitoli,
Tahsil- Manora, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 - Jagmohan Ram S/o Ramsai Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village- Manzatoli Sonkyari, Police Station- Sanna, District-
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Sundara Ram S/o Khylo Ram Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village- Manzatoli Sonkyari, Police Station- Sana, District-
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisonal Office-
Priydarshani Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. R.N. Pusty with Mr. Akash
Shrivastava, Advocates
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
30.03.2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the
appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of
compensation, challenging the impugned award dated
04/11/2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Claim Case
No. 85/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has
awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,87,500/- as compensation to
the appellants/claimants for the death of Ajay Tirkey and
the Insurance Company has been directed to pay the
compensation to the claimants and thereafter, recover it
from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would
submit that the Claims Tribunal has only granted
Rs. 40,000/- to appellant No. 1 (wife of the deceased) under
loss of consortium whereas all the appellants/claimants
ought to have been granted Rs. 40,000/- each under loss of
consortium, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be
enhanced.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the
submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and
submit that as per the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and
Others1, the appellants/claimants would be entitled to
Rs. 40,000/- each under loss of consortium.
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. A careful perusal of the record would show that the
Claims Tribunal has only granted compensation of Rs.
40,000/- to the appellant No. 1 (wife of the deceased)
under loss of consortium, however, Rs. 40,000/- ought to
have been granted for loss of consortium to each of the
appellants/claimants.
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
Sethi2, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Ors3 and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram
(supra), this Court is computing the compensation as
below:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Compensation
No awarded by the awarded by this
. Tribunal Court
1. Income Rs. 9,000/- x 12 = Rs. 9,000/- x 12
Rs. 1,08,000/- = Rs. 1,08,000/-
1 (2018) 18 SCC 130
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
3 (2009) 6 SCC 121
2. Future Prospect (+) 25% i.e. (+) 25% i.e.
Rs. 27,000/- = Rs. 27,000/- =
Rs. 1,35,000/- Rs. 1,35,000/-
3. Deduction (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. (-) ¼ i.e. Rs.
33,750/- = 33,750/- =
Rs. 1,01,250/- Rs. 1,01,250/-
4. Multiplier (x) 14 = (x) 14 =
Rs. 14,17,500/- Rs. 14,17,500/-
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 6
= Rs. 2,40,000/-
Total Rs. 14,87,500/- Rs. 16,87,500/-
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of
compensation of Rs. 14,87,500/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 16,87,500/-. Hence, the
claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of
Rs. 2,00,000/-. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit
the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court
within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order and thereafter recover it from the owner and
driver of the offending vehicle. The additional amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal
i.e. 27/10/2018 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of
the impugned award shall remain intact.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned
award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
