[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Jamotri Bai Chandravanshi vs Dhanuwaram @ Girdhari on 10 March, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
2026:CGHC:11339
AJINKYA
NAFR
PANSARE
Date:
2026.03.10
18:52:06
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1001 of 2023
1. Smt. Jamotri Bai Chandravanshi W/o Late Shri Geetaram
Chandravanshi, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Gandaikala
Pandatarai, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, At
Present R/o Near Matachoura, Kududand, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil
Line, Tahsi And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2. Jitendra Chandravanshi, S/o Late Geetaram Chandravanshi Aged
About 26 Years R/o Village Gandaikala Pandatarai, P.S.
Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, At Present R/o Near
Matachoura, Kududand, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsi And District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. Ritesh Kumar Chandravanshi, S/o Late Geetaram Chandravanshi
Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Gandaikala Pandatarai, P.S.
Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, At Present R/o Near
Matachoura, Kududand, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsi And District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. Sitesh Chandravanshi, S/o Late Geetaram Chandravanshi Aged
About 19 Years R/o Village Gandaikala Pandatarai, P.S.
Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, At Present R/o Near
Matachoura, Kududand, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsi And District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Smt. Gabhaiya Chandravanshi, W/o Late Pirtha Chanravanshi,
Aged About 84 Years R/o Village Gandaikala Pandatarai, P.S.
Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, At Present R/o Near
Matachoura, Kududand, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsi And District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
1. Dhanuwaram @ Girdhari S/o Lakhandas Chandrasen, Aged
About 53 Years R/o Kosamtara, P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh (Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle
2
Motorcycle Bearing Registration C.G. 28-K/7467)
2. Branch Manager, Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.
Fourth Floor Gwalani Chamber, T-8, Near Icici Bank, Main Road,
Vypar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle
Bearing Registration C.G. 28-K/7467)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Adv.
For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Mansi Bandey, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
10.3.2026
1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award
passed by learned Tenth Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 1350/2021 dated 17.2.2023
whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.
15,75,500/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Geetaram
Chandravanshi.
2) Facts of the present case are that on 19.4.2021, Geetaram
Chandravanshi was going to Village Gandaikala with his friend
when the offending vehicle - motorcycle bearing registration No.
CG-28-K-7467 being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed
Geetaram. In the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and died
during the course of treatment. Claimants, who are the widow,
children and mother of deceased moved claim application
claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,40,000/-.
They pleaded that the deceased was a 45 years old mason
earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal framed issues ;
parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed.
3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal
applied multiplier of 13 considering the deceased to aged between
46 and 50 years whereas claimants have categorically pleaded
that deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident. He
further submits that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Others1, appropriate multiplier for an
individual aged between 41 and 45 years is 14 and learned
Tribunal should have applied the same. He fairly submits that
learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased on
the basis of minimum wage matrix applicable at relevant time and
granted appropriate compensation under conventional heads. He
prays to modify the award accordingly.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company would oppose. She submits that learned Tribunal has
awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves
to be dismissed.
5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with
utmost circumspection.
1. (2009) 6 SCC 121
6) In the present case there is no dispute with regard to Tribunal's
assessment of income of deceased and compensation awarded
under conventional heads. The core controversy, however, lies in
Tribunal's assessment of multiplier. Admittedly, claimants in claim
petition and evidence have stated that age of deceased was 45
years. Jamotri Bai (PW/1), wife of deceased in para-5 has also
stated that deceased was aged 45 years. In post mortem report,
age of deceased is mentioned as 45 years and Insurance
Company could not lead evidence to prove the contrary but
learned Tribunal on assumption alone considered the age of
deceased between 46 and 50 years and applied multiplier of 13.
7) In the context of the Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier for an
individual aged between 41 and 45 years is 14, therefore applying
multiplier of 13 is a patent error of law. Therefore, claimants would
be entitled to an enhancement of the compensation by applying
the correct multiplier of 14.
8) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is re-
computing the compensation as below:
Sr. Heads Compensation Compensation
No awarded by awarded by this Court
. Tribunal
1. Annual Income Rs. 1,10,400/- Rs. 1,10,400/-
(@Rs. 9,200 pm) (@Rs. 9,200 pm)
2. Annual income after Rs. 82,800/- Rs. 82,800/-
Deduction towards (@1/4) (@1/4)
personal expenses
3. Annual Income after Rs. 1,03,500/- Rs. 1,03,500/-
adding Future (@25%) (@25%)
Prospect
4. Annual Income after Rs. 13,45,500/- Rs. 14,49,000/-
applying Multiplier
(@13) (@14)
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-
(five claimants) (five claimants)
TOTAL Rs. 15,75,500/- Rs. 16,79,000/-
9) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 15,75,500/-
awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 16,79,000/-.
Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.
1,03,500/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment
of additional compensation assessed herein-above in addition to
the award passed by learned Tribunal within period of 60 days.
Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact.
10) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Ajinkya
