ASHOK v. Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

1 - Suraj Singh Dhruv, S/o. Shri Dhannu Singh Dhruv, Aged About 22 Years, At Present R/o. House Of Vijay Chhute Insurance Vali, Near Gurudwara, Mahaveer Nagar, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)...........(Driver Of The Vehicle Truck No. CG-04/MS-9111) 2 - Smt. Pryanka Shrivastava, W/o. Prakash Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o. C-306, Avinash Pride, Heerapur, Police Station Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)............(Owner Of The Vehicle Truck No. CG-04/MS-9111) 3 - Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Simran Tower, Infront Of L.I.C. Building, Pandari Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)...............(Insurer Of The Vehicle Truck No. CG-04/MS-9111) ... Respondents 2 For Appellant : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board

11.12.2025

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated

27.02.2023 passed by learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No.400/2021, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and an amount of Rs. 12,47,716/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of Gopal Sahu, aged about 24 years, at the time of incident.

Appellants, who are father & mother of deceased Gopal Sahu 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. 41,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased Gopal Sahu, aged about 24 years, was a sole bread earner of the family and on 3 account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties.

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Gopal Sahu 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. 12,47,716/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application.

Mr. Vikram Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month as unskilled labour; whereas he was skilled labour and getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, which has been duly been proved by Raja Kushwaha (AW-3) proprietor of SKYLINE where the deceased used to work. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal may be enhanced suitably. 4

Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the insurance company/ respondent No.3 would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely.

Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Gopal Sahu to be Rs.6,000/- per month as unskilled labour, however, it was duly proved by Raja Kushwaha (AW-3), employer of the deceased, that deceased was skilled labour. In that view of the matter, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for the skilled labour, the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been taken Rs.10,030/- per month, which comes to Rs. 1,20,360/- per annum.

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 Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and 1 2