Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.19 09:34:50 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:47695 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 459 of 2020 1. Nisha Patle W/o Late Ballam Singh Patle Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Birgaon, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2. Dipika Patle D/o Late Ballam Singh Patle Aged About 11 Years (Minor) Though Legal Natural Guardian Mother Namely Nisha Patle, Resident Of Village Birgaon, Police Station Mungeli, District Chhattisgarh Mungeli Chhattisgarh, Mungeli, District : 3. Devid Patle S/o Late Ballam Singh Patle Aged About 9 Years (Minor) Though Legal Natural Guardian Mother Namely Nisha Patle, Resident Of Village Birgaon, Police Station Mungeli, District Chhattisgarh Mungeli Chhattisgarh, Mungeli, District : 4. Dipanshu Patle S/o Late Ballam Singh Patle Aged About 7 Years (Minor) Though Legal Natural Guardian Mother Namely Nisha Patle, Resident Of Village Birgaon, Police Station Mungeli, District Chhattisgarh Mungeli Chhattisgarh, Mungeli, District : 5. Vinit Patle S/o Late Ballam Singh Patle Aged About 3 Years (Minor) Though Legal Natural Guardian Mother Namely Nisha Patle, Resident Of Village Birgaon, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Kamal Prasad S/o Banshi Lal Patle Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Birgaon, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10a 6679), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 2. Sheikh Sajid Manihar S/o Sheikh Majid Manihar Resident Of Daupara, Anduj Ward, Mungeli, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10a 6679), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3. Ifco Tokiya General Insurance Company Ltd. District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10a 6679), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : None in two rounds, despite service of notice Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 17/09/2025 1) With the consent of parties, this matter is heard finally. 2) This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the award dated 28.06.2016, passed in Claim Case No. 59 of 2014 by the Member of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), whereby learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim application and awarded sum of Rs. 5,26,400/- on account of death of Ballam Singh. 3) Facts of the present case as per claim application are that deceased Ballam Singh was working as Helper in truck bearing registration No. CG-10-A-6679. On 26.03.2014, driver of the offending vehicle/ truck driving it rashly and negligently, caused an accident and Ballam Singh died on account of injuries sustained. At the time of accident, age of Ballam Singh was between 41 to 3 45 years and was earning Rs. 6,000 to 7,000/-. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, which should be Rs.5,163/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He further submits that learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for future prospect, whereas, the age of the deceased at the time of death around 41 to 45 years. He contends that learned Tribunal has not passed any award on the head of loss of consortium to the appellants/claimants and has awarded very meager amount under the head of funeral expenses. He prays to enhance the compensation accordingly. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 opposes. He submits that learned Tribunal has justified in assessing compensation on notional basis and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. He further submits that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7) In the instant case, admittedly, learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, since the deceased was working as an unskilled labour i.e. Helper in a truck, therefore, as per the 4 Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 5,163/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospect and loss of consortium and the compensation awarded for funeral expense also appears to be on lower side, thus the award requires recomputation. 8) Thus, in the 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: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this COurt 1. Annual Income Rs. 3,000/- x 12 = Rs. 36,000/- Rs. 5,163/- x12 = Rs. 61,956/- 2. Annual Income adding Future Prospect @ 30% Rs. 46,800/- 3. Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses @ 1/4 Rs. 35,100/- Rs. 80,542/- Rs. 59,407/- 4. Annual Income after applying Multiplier(14) Rs. 4,91,400/- Rs. 8,31,698/-