✦ Chhattisgarh High Court

Hardik Shrivastava v. Vikas Jaiswal

CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 905 of 2019SANJAY K AGRAWAL4 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above and the impugned award is modified. Harneet Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Judgment

3 - Hardik Shrivastava S/o Hemchandra Shrivastava Aged About 24 Years R/o Devendra Nagar, Behind Power House, Ameri Road, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Present Address Mahapour Para, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Appellant (s) versus 2 1 - Vikas Jaiswal S/o Pramod Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Jain Mandir Kurumkera, Bagicha, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jhurna Sahu W/o Yugal Kishor Sahu, R/o Behind Shiv Mandir Purena, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : : Ms. Shruti Shrivastava, Advocate Ms. Suchi Ramteke on behalf of Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocates SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board

09.04.2026

1.

Appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 28/02/2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Ambikapur in Claim Case No. 13/2018 whereby compensation of Rs. 11,36,256/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of Snehlata Shrivastava.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the 3 Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- as in accordance with the minimum wages notification prevailing on the date of the accident, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs. 6,549/-. Similarly, the Claims Tribunal has not granted parental consortium whereas Rs. 40,000/- x 2 = Rs. 80,000/- ought to have been granted under parental consortium. As such, the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced.

3.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

5.

A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- whereas it ought to have been taken as Rs. 6,549/- as per the minimum wage notification prevailing on the date of the accident. Similarly, no compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal under loss of parental consortium whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 40,000/- x 2 = Rs. 80,000/- under loss of consortium. Thus, this Court is re-computing the compensation as stated below :- 4 Heads Compensation Compensation awarded by awarded by this Tribunal Rs. 4,500/- x 12 = Court Rs. 6,549/- x 12 = Sr. No . 1. Income

2. Future Prospect

4. Deduction

5. Multiplier

6.

Loss of Estate 7. Funeral Expenses 8. Loss Rs. 54,000/- (+) 10% i.e. Rs. 5,400/- Rs. 78,588/- (+) 10% i.e. = Rs. 59,400/- Rs.

7858.8/- = (-) ½ = Rs. 29,700/- Rs. 86,446.8/- (-) ½ = 43,223.4/- (x) 9 = Rs. 2,67,300/- (x) 9 = Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Spousal Rs. 3,89,010.6/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Consortium Loss Parental NIL Rs. 80,000/- Consortium Medical Expenses Physical and Mental Pain Rs. 3,78,256/- Rs. 10,000/- and Suffering Attendant’s fee Nutritional Food Travelling Expenses Revised invoice of Safe Rs. 3,200/- Rs. 2,500/- Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/- Fly Aviation Services (P) Rs. 3,78,256/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/- Ltd. Total Rs. 11,36,256/- Rs. 13,52,266.6/-

6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 11,36,256/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,52,266.6/-. Hence, the claimants are held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 2,16,010.6/-. Respondent No. 3 is 5 directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 08/01/2018 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

Operative part

7.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above and the impugned award is modified. Harneet Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Chhattisgarh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 905 of 2019). ← Search more judgments