[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Indu Vasnik vs Mohan Kashyap on 20 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13401
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1662 of 2019
Digitally
signed by
HARNEET
HARNEET KAUR
KAUR Date:
11:17:44
+0530 1 - Smt. Indu Vasnik W/o Late Pradeep Kumar Vasnik Aged
2026.03.23
About 50 Years R/o Maharani Ward, Behind Devansh Hotel,
Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ritesh Vasnik S/o Late Pradeep Kumar Vasnik Aged About
27 Years R/o Maharani Ward, Behind Devansh Hotel, Jagdalpur,
District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),
Chhattisgarh
3 - Kumari Parul Vasnik D/o Late Pradeep Kumar Vasnik Aged
About 26 Years R/o Maharani Ward, Behind Devansh Hotel,
Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
1 - Mohan Kashyap S/o Nadgu Kashyap Aged About 35 Years
Occupation Truck Driver, R/o C/o Suresh Kumar Gandhi S/o
Rameshwar Gandhi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Main Road,
Dornapal P.S. Dornapal, District- Sukma,
Chhattisgrah................(Driver)
2 - Suresh Kumar Gandhi S/o Rameshwar Gandhi Aged About
2
30 Years R/o Main Road, Dornapal, P.S. Dornapal, District-
Sukma, Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through The
Branch Manager, Hotel Laxman Avenue, Medial College Road,
Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgrah...........( Insurance).
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. R.N. Pusty and Mr. Akash
Shrivastava, Advocate
SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
20.03.2026
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/claimants against the impugned award dated
15/03/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bastar Place Jagdalpur in Claim Case No.
194/2018 seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Claims Tribunal for the death of Pradeep
Kumar Vasnik.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would
submit that on the date of accident, the deceased was
aged about 50 years and 7 months, however, the Claims
Tribunal has taken his age as 51 years and granted
multiplier of 11 whereas it ought to have granted
multiplier of 13 after taking the age of the deceased as
50 years in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court in the matter of Shashikala v.
Gangalakshmamma and Others1. He would further
submit that the Claims Tribunal has only granted
Rs. 30,000/- as loss of consortium to the two children of
the deceased whereas it ought to have granted Rs.
40,000/- to each of them, therefore, the amount of
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable
to be enhanced.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance
Company would support the impugned award and
submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and went
through the record with utmost circumspection.
5. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Shashikala (supra)
where the deceased was aged about 45 years 5 months
and 28 days, held that for the purpose of award of
compensation, since deceased had completed only 45
1 2015 (9) SCC 150
years, therefore, age to be taken as 45 and proceeded to
grant compensation accordingly.
6. In the instant case, since on the date of the accident,
deceased was aged about 50 years and 7 months,
therefore, his age would be taken as 50 and accordingly,
multiplier of 13 would be applied instead of 11.
Moreover, the Claims Tribunal has erred in granted only
Rs. 30,000/- as loss of consortium to the two children of
the deceased whereas each of them should be granted
Rs. 40,000/- i.e. Rs. 80,000 in total.
7. In view of the aforesaid, compensation is calculated
below :-
Heads of Compensation Compensation
Compensation awarded by the awarded by this Court
Tribunal
Income Rs. 66,842 x 12 = Rs. 66,842 x 12 =
Rs. 8,02,104 - Rs. 8,02,104 -
Rs. 72,920 (tax) = Rs. 72,920 (tax) =
Rs. 7,29,184/- Rs. 7,29,184/-
Future Prospect (+) 15 % = (+) 15 % =
Rs. 10,93,377/- Rs. 10,93,377/-
Personal Expenses (-) 1/3rd = (-) 1/3rd =
Rs. 5,59,042/- Rs. 5,59,042/-
Multiplier (x) 11 = (x) 13 =
Rs. 61,49,462/- Rs. 72,67,546/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
to wife
Loss of Consortium Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 40,000/- x 2 =
to Children Rs. 80,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 62,49,462/- Rs. 74,17,546/-
8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of
compensation of Rs. 62,49,462/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 74,17,546/-. Hence, the
appellants are held entitled for an additional compensation
of Rs. 11,68,084/-. 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. The additional amount of compensation shall
carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of
claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 04/10/2018 till
its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned
award shall remain intact.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned
award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
