Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 (MAC No. 73 of 2022) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.09.26 12:03:39 +0530 2025:CGHC:49251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 73 of 2022 1 - Famesh Nishad S/o Bhakurra Nishad, Aged About 35 Years R/o Indirangar Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Minor, Raunak Nishad S/o Famesh Nishad Aged About 10 Years Through The Legal Guardian Father Famesh Nishad R/o Indirangar Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Minor, Ku. Anchal Nishad D/o Famesh Nishad, Aged About 12 Years Through The Legal Guardian Father Famesh Nishad, R/o Indirangar Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - M/s Singhal Infratech Through The Ashok Singhal, Present Address H. No. 48, Park City, Ward No. 33, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 13- Ae/5400) 2 - Amarjeet Pradhan S/o Agyan Pradhan, Aged About 30 Years Madhusudanpalli, Raurkela (Orisha) Present Address H. No. 48 Park City, Ward No. 33, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Driver Offending Of Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 13-Ae/5400) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Permanent Office Shubham Complex, Near State Bank Main Branch, Kevdabadi, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 13-Ae/5400) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) --- Respondent(s) 2 (MAC No. 73 of 2022) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
:- Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 25.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 08.04.2021 passed by learned VII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.19/2020, whereby an amount of Rs. 10,06,000/- has been awarded as compensation for death of Anju Nishad, who was working as labourer, aged about 35 years, at the time of incident. 2. Appellants, who are husband and minor children of the deceased Anju Nishad, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased Anju Nishad, 3 (MAC No. 73 of 2022) was aged about 35 years and was working as a labourer and on account of her untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by the respective parties, held that deceased Anju Nishad died in the accident caused due to negligent and rash driving of trailer vehicle, insured by respondent No.3 and since breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, fastened the liability upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation and after calculation, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,06,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded very meager amount, as the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, whereas the deceased used to earn Rs. 12,000/- per month while working as a labourer. Moreover, the amount under other heads also are on the lower side and liable to be enhanced. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the amount of 4 (MAC No. 73 of 2022) compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the insurance company/respondent No.3 would submit that the appellants have failed to prove the exact income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the learned Claims Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Anju Nishad to be Rs.5,000/- per month, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.7,800/- per month, which comes to Rs. 93,600/- per annum. 5 (MAC No. 73 of 2022) 8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 5,000/- x 12 = Rs.60,000/- Rs. 7,800/-x 12 = Rs.93,600/- Future prospects @ 40% Rs. 60,000 + 24,000 = Rs.84,000/- Rs. 93,600 + 37,440 = Rs.1,31,040/- Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses Multiplier of 16 Rs.84,000 – 28,000 = Rs.56,000/- Rs.1,31,040 – 43,680 = Rs.87,360/- Rs. 56,000 x 16 = Rs.8,96,000/- Rs. 87,360 x 16 = Rs.13,97,760/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Loss of Spousal, parental Consortium Rs. 80,000/- Rs.1,32,000/- Total Rs. 10,06,000/- Rs. 15,65,760/- 1 2 3