Rathram Karsh v. Ramkumar

: Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

13.03.2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation assailing the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) passed in Claim Case No. 80/2016 dated 24.02.2018, whereby learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,79,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Paleshwar Karsh. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 27.12.2014 at around 07:15 pm, the motorcycle of the deceased Paleshwar Karsh was dashed by offending truck bearing Registration No. CG-04- KE-0414. In the said accident, Paleshwar Karsh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. Claimants, who are the parents of deceased filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 51,05,000/-. They pleaded that the deceased was aged 23 years and was earning Rs.

7,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed. 3 3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,000/- per month which is not in consonance with the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. He further submits that learned Tribunal has not granted adequate compensation on conventional heads. He would prays for enhancement in the compensation. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He submits that claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading cogent evidence and therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed it Rs. 4,000/- per month. He submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

6) Admittedly, age of the deceased was 23 years and pleaded income was Rs. 7,000/-, but the claimants could not prove the income of the deceased by leading cogent evidence. In absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix. The minimum wage payable to an unskilled laborer in month of December, 2014 was Rs. 5,500/- per month and learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing income of the deceased. The Tribunal further committed error while granting a fix sum of Rs. 77,000/- towards 4 loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, thus, the compensation requires reconsideration and the same is being revisited herein-below: Sr. No . Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court

Annual Income Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 66,000/- (@Rs. 4,000 pm) (@Rs. 5,500 pm)

Future Prospect Rs. 19,200/- Rs. 26,400/-

Deduction (@40%) Rs. 33,600/- (@1/2) (@40%) Rs. 46,200/- (@1/2)

Multiplier Rs. 6,04,800/- Rs. 8,31,600/- (@18) (@18)

Loss of Estate Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 18,000/-

Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/-