Gore Singh v. Rajendra Sahu

#1. Gore Singh, S/o Late Shri Feku Singh, Aged about 55 years.

#2. Smt. Rekha Bai, W/o Shri Gore Singh, Aged about 50 years. Both are R/o Ward No.5, Hathnikala, P.S. Tahsil and District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus

#1. Rajendra Sahu, S/o Anjore Ram Sahu, Aged about 43 years, R/o Ward No.6, Sodar, P.S. Tahsil and District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Owner-cum-Driver)

#2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through the Branch Manager-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, R/o S-8, S- 9, Second Floor, C.G. Plaza, Agrasen Chowk, Near Telephone Exchange, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) (Non-Applicants) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rahul Singh Thakur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 12/05/2026 (MAC No.1619/2019)

#1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants herein/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 30-1-2019 passed by the Additional Member to the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli in Motor Accident Claim Case No.53/2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 9,77,200/- as compensation for the death of Umesh Singh, who was a Welder, aged about 21 years at the time of incident. The appellants herein/claimants are parents of deceased Umesh Singh.

#2. Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that the deceased was a Welder and thus, he was a semi-skilled labour and the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income to be ₹ 8,750/- on the basis of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2021, whereas, it has been taken as ₹ 6,000/-, therefore, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably.

#3. Mr. Rahul Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 herein/Insurance Company, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal.

#4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. (MAC No.1619/2019)

#5. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Umesh Singh to be ₹ 6,000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be ₹ 8,750/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time).

#6. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was a Welder, 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 Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. 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:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation

#1. Income ₹ 6,000/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 6,000 x 12 = ₹ 72,000/-.

#3. Deduction Future Prospect 40% i.e. ₹ 28,800/-; ₹ 72,000 + 28,800 = ₹ 1,00,800/- (-) ½ = ₹ 50,400/- ₹ 1,00,800 – 50,400 = ₹ 50,400/- (x) 18 = ₹ 9,07,200/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/-

#4. Multiplier 5. 6. Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Loss Consortium

#7. ₹ 8,750/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 8,750 x 12 = ₹ 1,05,000/-. 40% i.e. ₹ 42,000/-; ₹ 1,05,000 + 42,000 = ₹ 1,47,000/- (-) ½ = ₹ 73,500/- ₹ 1,47,000 – 73,500 = ₹ 73,500/- (x) 18 = ₹ 13,23,000/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 40,000/- x 2 = ₹ 80,000/- 1 2 3