Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:56295
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1608 of 2024 1 - Ashadevi Kaiwartya Wd/o Shri Krishna Kumar Kaiwartya Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mudpar (Katgi) P.S. Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 2 - Minor, Nandini Kaiwartya D/o Late Shri Krishna Kumar Kaiwartya Aged About 15 Years Through His Legal Guardian Mother Ashadevi Kaiwartya Wd/o Shri Krishna Kumar Kaiwartya, R/o Village Mudpar (Katgi) P.S. Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 3 - Minor, Rajkumar Kaiwartya S/o Late Shri Krishna Kumar Kaiwartya Aged About 11 Years Through His Legal Guardian Mother Ashadevi Kaiwartya Wd/o Shri Krishna Kumar Kaiwartya, R/o Village Mudpar (Katgi) P.S. Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 4 - Chhaviram Kaiwartya S/o Shri Rangnath Kaiwartya (Died Deleted) Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Mudpar (Katgi) P.S. Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, C.G. 5 - Jhulbai Kaiwartya W/o Shri Chhaviram Kaiwartya Aged About 56 Years Or/o Village Mudpar (Katgi) P.S. Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, C.G.
... Appellants versus 1 - Jivrakhan Rajwar S/o Banasdhari Rajwar Aged About 30 Years R/o Mukwa Jatga Pasan Korba, P.S. And District Korba, C.G. (Driver Of The Vehicle No. Cg 13 Ad 5965) 2 - Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o L.L.P. R/o Chandni Chowk, Raigarh, P.S. And District Raigarh, C.G. (Owner Of The Vehicle No. Cg 13 Ad 5965) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE
2 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Ambika Petrol Pump Campus Ambikapur, P.S. And District Surguja, Ambikapur, C.G. (Insurance Company Of The Vehicle No. Cg 13 Ad 5965)
... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : : Ms. Neelam Khan, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment on Board 19/11/2025
1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the II nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, in Claim Case No. 51/2020, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.12,22,000/- on account of death of Krishna Kumar Kaiwartya. 4. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that on 02.01.2020, the deceased Krishna Kumar Kaiwartya was going to village Mirchid from village Khapridih on his motorcycle. His wife was also going to Mirchid with one Dinesh on another motorcycle. At about 3:50 p.m.; when they reached near Md. Murtaja Ansari Tyre Shop, the driver of the offending vehicle (Hywa) bearing Registration No. CG-13-AD- 5965 dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from back side. Consequently, the deceased fell down, sustained grievous injuries, and
3 succumbed to it. Claimant No.1 was an eye-witness to the accident. He would further submit that the deceased was working as a Mason and earning Rs. 15,000 per month. However, in absence of documentary proof, the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly notional income at Rs. 8,000 per month, which is on the lower side. He argues that in such circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix admissible to an unskilled labourer in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. Mr. Verma would fairly submit that though the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation under other heads, but it failed to award compensation towards future prospects; thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the award passed by the learned Tribunal and submit that just and proper compensation has been granted by the learned Tribunal; thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. In the present case, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 35 years. The claimants, who are wife, children and parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the claimants could not prove the income of the deceased by leading cogent evidence, the learned Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix applicable in the month of January 2020, which was Rs.
9,120 per month and looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 35 years 40% of income was required to be added towards future prospects. The Tribunal has applied multiplier 16 considering the age of the deceased 35 years which is proper and requires no interference. For loss of estate and funeral expenses, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000 – 15,000/-. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 4 40,000/- for loss of consortium to claimant No.1. It is informed by
learned counsel for the appellants that during the pendency of the appeal, the father of the deceased has expired.
8. In view of the above discussion, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and same is revisited as under: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court
1. Income
8,000 x 12 = 96,000/- Rs.9,120 x 12 = 1,09,440/-
2. Future Prospect none 40% = 1,09,440+43776 = 1,53,216/-
3. Deduction 1/4 = 96,000 – 24,000 = 72,000/- 1/4= 1,53,216 – 38,304
= 1,14,912/-
4. Multiplier X16 = 11,52,000 X 16 = 18,38,592
5. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/-
6. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/-
7. Loss of Consortium (claimant No.1) 40,000 Appellants No.2, 3 & 5 (40,000 x3) +10%) + appellant No.1 (40,000) = 1,32,000 + 40,000 = 1,72,000/- Total Rs.12,22,000/- Rs.20,40,592/- Final Compensation Rs.20,40,592 - 12,22,000 Rs. 8,18,592/-
5
1. In view of the above calculation, the claimants shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 8,18,592/-. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation Rs. 8,18,592/- with interest @9% to the appellants/claimants within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.
2. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. Sd/-
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
JUDGE Nadim