[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shatruhan Lal Sahu vs Vijay Patil on 12 March, 2026
-1-
2026:CGHC:11827
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 248 of 2023
1 - Shatruhan Lal Sahu S/o Abhayram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Rampur, Police Station Bhakhara, Tahsil Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari (C.G.)
(Claimants)
2 - Sahdev S/o Abhyram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Rampur, Police
Station Bhakhara, Tahsil Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari (C.G.)
3 - Smt. Lachchhni Bai Sahu W/o Manbodhi Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village
Navagaon, Police Station Bhakhara, Tahsil Bhakhara District - Dhamtari (C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - Vijay Patil S/o Bharatlal Patil Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Rampur, Police
Station Bhakhara, Tahsil Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) (Driver)
2 - Arjun Ratre S/o Shambhuram Ratre R/o Satnam Chowk Ward No. 12, Rampur,
Police Station Bhakhara, Tahsil Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner)
3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Zonal Manager, Zonal Office
M.B. Trade Centre, Near Ghadi Chowk, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (Insurance
Company)
... Respondents
For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate
For respondent No.3/Insurance : Ms. M. Asha, Advocate
Company
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
12.03.2026
1) Heard.
2) 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, Camp Court Kurud, District
Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No.09/2021 dated 08/08/2022 whereby,
the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of
Rs.5,40,288/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of
Kanti Bai Sahu.
3) The facts of the present case are that on 31.08.2022 at around 8:00
a.m., while the deceased- Kanti Bai Sahu was in front of her house, the
offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.C.G.05/AD/5041 dashed
her from behind, resultantly, she sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to death.
4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit
that the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased
Rs.4,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would further submit that
the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled laborour in the month of August,
2022 was Rs.10,220/- and the learned Tribunal should have considered that
figure while computing the compensation. He would fairly submit that on other
heads, learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would
pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.
5) On the other hand, Ms. M. Asha, learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr.
Dhurandhar. She would submit that at the time of accident age of
deceased was 55 years, therefore, learned Tribunal rightly assessed her
income Rs.4,000/- per month. She would further submit that the learned
Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and appeal deserves
to be dismissed.
6) Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 would
support the contentions made by Ms. Asha.
7) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the record with utmost circumspection.
8) Admittedly, age of the deceased was 55 years. The claimants could not
lead evidence to establish pleaded income of deceased and 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 August, 2022 was
Rs.10,220/- per month and the learned Tribunal should have considered
that figure while computing the compensation.
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.4000x12= Rs.48,000/- Rs.10,220x12 = Rs.1,22,640
2. Future Prospect 10% of 48,000 = 4,800/- 10% of 1,22,640 = 12,264
1,22,640+ 12,264 =1,34,904
48,000 + 4,800= 52,800
3. Deduction (-) 1/3 of 52,800 =Rs. 17,600 (-) 1/3 of 1,34,904= 44,968
1,34,904 - 44,968 = 89,936
52,800 - 17,600 = 35,200
4. Multiplier (x) 11 = Rs. 3,87,288/- (x) 11 =Rs. 9,89,296/-
5. Other heads- Rs.40,000 x 3 = 1,20,000 Rs.40,000 x 3 = 1,20,000
loss of Consortium
(for appellants)
6. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/-
7. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/-
8. Total Rs. 5,40,288/- Rs. 11,42,296/-
10) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.5,40,288/- awarded by
the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.11,42,296/-. Hence, after
deducting the amount of Rs.5,40,288/-, the appellants are entitled for an
additional amount of Rs.6,02,008/-. 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
