Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19986 (CHH)

VINAY VISHWAS v. GHANSHYAM INDRALAY

MAC/949/2019 · 2025-09-21

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:48521 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 949 of 2019 1- Vinay Vishwas S/o Banikant Vishwas, Aged About 50 Years R/o Schoolpara, Yogendra Nagar P.V. 29 Pankhajur, District Kanker, At Present Albelapara, Kanker District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Mala Vishwas W/o Vinay Vishwas Aged About 40 Years R/o Schoolpara, Yogendra Nagar P.V. 29 Pankhajur, District Kanker, At Present Albelapara, Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bittu Vishwas S/o Vinay Vishwas Aged About 21 Years R/o Schoolpara, Yogendra Nagar P.V. 29 Pankhajur, District Kanker, At Present Albelapara, Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellants versus 1 - Ghanshyam Indralay S/o Dashrath Indralay Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Godari, Antagarh, At Present R/o Basant Nagar, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Satnam Singh Dhaliwal S/o Gurutej Singh Dhaliwal R/o Village Godari, Antagarh, At Present R/o Basant Nagar, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh (Driver), 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Mobin Mahal, Second Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer), ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 For Respondent No.3 For Respondents No.1 & 2 : : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate None Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22/09/2025 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, North Bastar Kanker, in Claim Case No.21/2018, decided on 14.03.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,61,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of the death of Vipul Viswas in a motor accident. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 03.10.2010, the deceased, Vipul Viswas, was proceeding towards Kanker on his motorcycle (CG-19-B.S.-1665) along with one Gopi Bala. Near Doddekadar Mod, the driver of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. CG-07-A.D.-9729, driving rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries during the course of treatment. At the time of accident, the deceased was 24 years of age and was working as an Engineer in a private company, and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The claimants, 3 who are the parents and elder brother of the deceased, filed a claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 51,60,000/-. The Insurance Company filed its written statement, denying the averments made in the claim case. The Tribunal framed issues and the parties adduced evidence. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal passed the award as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side. He contends that the minimum wage of skilled labour in the year 2010 was Rs. 6,648/-, whereas the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income at Rs. 5,500/-. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of future prospects and loss of consortium. Accordingly, he prays for enhancement of the compensation. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Pooja Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose submissions made by counsel for the appellants and submit that the claimants have failed to prove the actual income of the deceased by adducing evidence. She would contend that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 5,599/- per month, which is just and proper. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal does not require interference. 4 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and was employed as an Engineer in a private company. Though the claimants have pleaded his monthly income as Rs. 6,000/-, no documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the same. However, looking to the qualification of the deceased and nature of employment, it would not be proper to equate his income with that of an unskilled or semi-skilled labourer. 7. Considering the facts discussed above, this Court is of the view that the monthly notional income of the deceased ought to be fixed at Rs. 10,000/- per month. 8. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], the deceased being below 40 years of age, 40% addition towards future prospects is required to be made. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium, which the claimants are also entitled to. Accordingly, the compensation is re- calculated as under: S. No. Heads Amount (Rs.) 1 Monthly income of the deceased 10,000 2 Add: 40% towards future prospects 4,000 3 Total monthly income 14,000 5 S. No. Heads Amount (Rs.) 4 Less: 50% deduction (personal expenses) (as deceased was unmarried) 7,000 5 Contribution to family (per month) 7,000 6 Contribution to family (per annum) 84,000 7 Multiplier (18) 84,000 × 18 = Rs.15,12,000/- 8 Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000 × 3) 1,32,000 9 Funeral expenses 16,500 10 Loss of estate 16,500 11 Total Compensation Rs.16,77,000/- 12 Less: Already awarded by Tribunal Rs.8,61,600/- 13 Enhanced Payable Compensation Rs.8,15,400/- 9. Accordingly, the total compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.16,77,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Seventy-Seven Thousand only). Since the learned Claims Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.8,61,600/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Sixty-One Thousand Six Hundred only), the claimants shall be entitled to receive an enhanced compensation of Rs.8,15,400/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred only). 10. The impugned award is accordingly modified to the extent indicated herein above. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim