[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Devsai Ram vs Rupesh Vishwakarma on 12 March, 2026
-1-
2026:CGHC:11811
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 606 of 2020
1 - Devsai Ram S/o Late Sindhu Bhagat Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Patratoli
(Rupsera), Tahsil Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Sanjita Bai S/o Devsai Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Patratoli (Rupsera),
Tahsil Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Surjan Ram S/o Devsai Ram Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Patratoli (Rupsera),
Tahsil Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Minor Subendar Ram S/o Devsai Ram Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Next
Friend Namely Appellant No. 02 Sanjita Bai Their Sister, R/o Village Patratoli
(Rupsera), Tahsil Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
5 - Minor Bindeshwar Ram S/o Devsai Ram Aged About 15 Years Minor Through
Next Friend Namely Appellant No. 2 Namely Sanjita Bai, Their Sister , R/o Village
Patratoli (Rupsera), Tahsil Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 - Rupesh Vishwakarma S/o Shri Sarju Vishwakarma Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward
No. 14, House No. 60, Near Kali Mandir, Pump House Korba, District Korba
Chhattisgarh . (Driver And Owner), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
2 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited Address Ground Flore,
Commercial Building , Devendra Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurar),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate holding
the brief of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Adv.
For respondent No.2/Insurance : Mr. Rahul Singh Thakur, Advocate
Company holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma,Adv
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
12.03.2026
1) Heard.
2) Admit.
3) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
4) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of
compensation assailing the judgment and award passed by the learned
Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, District Jashpur
(C.G.) in Claim Case No.27/2019 dated 23.12.2019 whereby, the learned
Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.8,29,375/- with
interest @ 6 % per annum on account of death of Sarita Bai.
5) Mr. Patel would submit that Sarita Bai, aged about 40 years, met with an
accident on 10.02.2019 as the offending vehicle Maruti bearing
registration No.C.G.12/AW/6468 dashed her, resultantly, she sustained
injuries and succumbed to death. Mr. Patel would further submit that the
learned Tribunal has assessed income of deceased Rs.4,500/- per
month, whereas, the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer
in the month of February, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Tribunal
should have considered that figure while computing the income part. He would
contend that the learned Tribunal failed to grant filial consortium to claimants
No.2 to 5 who are the children of the deceased. He would fairly submit that on
other heads, learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He
would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.
6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by
Mr. Patel. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just
and proper compensation and the claimants failed to prove income of
deceased and thus, appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the record with utmost circumspection.
8) The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per
month but they could not adduce cogent evidence to prove income of
deceased, therefore, learned Tribunal should have applied minimum
wages matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time.
The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled laborour in the month of
February, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- per month and the learned Tribunal
should have considered that figure while computing the compensation.
Further, learned Tribunal should have granted filial consortium to the
claimants No. 2 to 5 as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.
9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the
compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein
below:
Sr. Heads Compensation awarded by Compensation awarded by
No. Tribunal this Court
1. Income Rs.4,500x12= Rs.54,000/- Rs.8140 x 12 = Rs.97,680/-
2. Future Prospect 25% of 54,000 = 13,500/- 25% of 97,680 = 24,420/-
54,000 + 13,500 = 67,500 97,680 + 24,420=1,22,100/-
3. Deduction (-) ¼ of 67,500 =Rs. 16,875 (-) ¼ of 1,22,100= 30,525
67,500 - 16,875 =50,625/- 1,22,100 - 30,525 = 91,575
4. Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs. 7,59,375/- (x) 15 =Rs. 13,73,625/-
5. Other heads- Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/-
loss of Consortium
(for appellant
No.1/wife)
6. Loss of consortium Nil Rs.40,000 x 4 = 1,60,000/-
for appellants No.2
to 5
7. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
8. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
9. Total Rs. 8,29,375/- Rs. 16,03,625/-
10) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.8,29,375/- awarded by
the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.16,03,625/-. Hence, after
deducting the amount of Rs.8,29,375/-, the appellants are entitled for an
additional amount of Rs.7,74,250/-. The additional amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and
conditions of award shall remain intact.
11) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is
modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
