High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 NAFR HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.10 17:00:09 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 703 of 2020 1 - Chhedilal Mirjha S/o Lt. Devcharan Mirjha Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Tikuliya, P.O. Tarenga, P.S. Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Balodabazar-Bhathapara, 2 - Smt. Sonmat Bai W/o Chhedilal Mirjha Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Tikuliya, P.O. Tarenga, P.S. Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Balodabazar-Bhathapara, 3 - Ku. Jaya D/o Late Ramavtar Mirjha Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Guardian And Their Grandfather Appellant No. 1 Chhedilal Mirjha S/o Lt. Devcharan Mirjha, R/o Village Tikuliya, P.O. Tarenga, P.S. Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh District Balodabazar-Bhathapara, : 4 - Ravi Kumar S/o Lt. Ramavtar Mirjha Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Guardian And Their Grandfather Appellant No. 1 Chhedilal Mirjha S/o Lt. Devcharan Mirjha, R/o Village Tikuliya, P.O. Tarenga, P.S. Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh., Balodabazar-Bhathapara, District : 5 - Ku. Khusbu D/o Lt. Ramavtar Mirjha Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Guardian And Their Grandfather Appellant No. 1 Chhedilal Mirjha S/o Lt. Devcharan Mirjha, R/o Village Tikuliya, P.O. Tarenga, P.S. Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh., Balodabazar-Bhathapara, District : 6 - Ku. Digeshweri D/o Lt. Ramavtar Mirjha Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Guardian And Their Grandfather Appellant No. 1 Chhedilal Mirjha S/o Lt. Devcharan Mirjha, R/o Village Tikuliya, P.O. Tarenga, P.S. Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Rupesh Kumar S/o Budhram Markandey R/o Village - Dhekuna (Deepak Kirana Stores) P.O. Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Bullet Motor Cycle No. C.G. -04 L.G. - 3041)., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vikash D/o Chandrashekhar Pal R/o Vishrampur, P.O. Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Bullet Motor Cycle No. C.G. 04 L.G. - Chhattisgarh 3041)., Balodabazar-Bhathapara, District : 3 - The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Division No.1), The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Bullet Motor Cycle No. C.G. -04 L.G. - 3041)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. It is well settled that the duty of the Tribunal as well as the Courts is to ensure that the claimants are awarded ‘just compensation’ to which they are legally entitled. The proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are summary in nature, and therefore, the strict application of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure is not required. 10) This Court is vested with the power to award appropriate compensation which, in its considered opinion, the claimants deserve, notwithstanding the fact that a lesser amount may have been claimed in the pleadings. It is also to be borne in mind that the deceased was the mother of appellant nos. 3 to 6, who, apart from losing their father, have also lost their mother in the very same accident. The contribution of a mother in the upbringing and welfare of her children is immense and cannot be equated in monetary terms. The loss of parental care, guidance, and affection to 4 appellant nos. 3 to 6 is irreparable, as they will have to live their entire lives without the shelter and support of their mother. 11) While considering these aspects, it would also be just and proper to take into account the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time. In MAC No. 709/2020, decided on 21.03.2025, this Court, while considering the claim for compensation in respect of the death of the husband of the present deceased/ Suneeta Mirjha, had taken his income to be Rs. 6,206/- per month. On the same parity of reasoning, this Court is also inclined to assess the monthly income of the deceased herein at Rs. 6,206/-. Such an assessment would ensure that the claimants receive just and fair compensation in accordance with law. 12) In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S.N Particular Awarded by this Court Monthly Income of the deceased Future Prospect 40% Net Income Yearly income Personal expenditure 1/4 Yearly dependency 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Multiplier of 17 applied to assess 6,206/- 6,206 X40%=2482/- 6,206+2482=8,688/- 8,688 X12=1,04,256/- 1,04,256/4= 26,064/- 1,04,256-26,064=78,192/- 78,192 X17= 13,29,264/- yearly loss of dependency Funeral Expenses Loss of estate 8. 9. 15,000/- 15,000/- 10. Parental consortium 1,60,000/- (40,000/- each to A-3 to Total compensation A-6) Rs. 15,19,264/- 5 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.8,86,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,19,264/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 8,86,800/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 06,32,464/-. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12)The respondent No. 3 insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days. On such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal shall pass an appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of enhanced amount to appellants/claimants. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari
Arguments
: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 03.09.2025 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 06.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (for short ‘learned Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. H-28/2017. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 08,86,800/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/ Suneeta Mirjha in an accident that took place on 19.03.2017 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Motor Cycle- Bullet) bearing Registration No. CG--04-LG-3041 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3/Insurance company. As a result of the said accident, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Suneeta Mirjha was aged about 30 years and was working as Labour and earning a monthly income of Rs. 4,000/-. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4) The respondent No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied the averment of the facts. Respondent No.3 /Insurance company in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 3 5) On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 6 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 6) Learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a labour though in the pleadings unfortunately her income pleaded as Rs. 4000/- per months but in order to award just compensation, the pleadings would not come as a bar. He submits that the amount of compensation may be enhanced. 7) Learned counsels for the respondent No.3 supports the award and submits that in view of evidence available on record and findings of the learned Tribunal is justified and just compensation has been awarded. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 9) From the pleadings, it appears that the deceased was working as a labourer and was