Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.08.14 16:54:36 +0530 2025:CGHC:40576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1098 of 2023 1– Mongra, W/o. Late Puniram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Village - Baispali, Post - Nawapara Nandeli, District - Raigarh (C.G.)…….. (Claimants) 2- Lok Nath, S/o. Late Puniram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Village - Baispali, Post - Nawapara Nandeli, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3- Devkumar Sarthi, D/o. Late Puniram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o. Village - Baispali, Post - Nawapara Nandeli, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4- Rameshwar, S/o. Late Puniram, Aged About 18 Years, R/o. Village - Baispali, Post - Nawapara Nandeli, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1- Ataul Ansari, S/o. Imamuddin Ansari, Aged About 29 Years, R/o. Village Farthiya, Gadhwa, Police Station Gadhwa, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand), Present Address - Deendayal Colony, Raigarh, House Of Shaukat Ali, Thana Konpali, District - Raigarh (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle No. CG-15 AC – 5343) 2 2- Laxmi Datt Joshi, S/o. Parmanand Johsi, R/o. House No. B/54, Phase - 1, Sagar Homes Sakri Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle No. CG-15 AC – 5343) 3- The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office - 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle No. CG-15 AC – 5343) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mohd. Parvez Khan, Advocate For Respondent No.3.
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 12.08.2025 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 30.07.2022 passed by learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in MACT/905/2021, whereby an amount of Rs. 7,00,400/- has been awarded as compensation for the death of Puniram Sarthi, who 3 was working as Labour, aged about 62 years, at the time of incident. 2. Appellants, who are wife, two sons & daughter of the deceased Puniram Sarthi, 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. 40,73,600/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased Puniram Sarthi was aged about 62 years and was a sole bread earner of the family and on account of his 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 respective parties, held that deceased Puniram Sarthi died in the accident arising out of rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by the respondent No.1, owned by the respondent No.2 and insured by the respondent No.3. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved and after calculating the amount of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,00,400/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 4 4. Mohd. Parvez Khan, 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 deceased as Rs.7,800/- per month which should be Rs.9,200/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal may be suitably enhanced. 5. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, 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 minutely. 5 7. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Puniram Sarthi to be Rs.7,800/- 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.9,200/- per month, which comes to Rs. 1,10,400/- per annum. 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. 7,800 x 12 = Rs. 93,600/- Rs. 9,200 x 12 = Rs. 1,10,400/- Rs.93,600 – 23,400 = Rs.70,200/- Rs. 1,10,400 – 27,600 = Rs.82,800/- Deduction towards personal expenses 1/4 1 2 3