✦ Chhattisgarh High Court

Sawan Kumar v. Shiv Kumar Dhruwvanshi

NAFR MAC No. 1716 of 2019SANJAY K AGRAWAL4 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
SANJAY K AGRAWAL
Neutral citation
2026:CGHC:27231

Outcome

Allowed

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned

Provisions considered

Judgment

Mr. CR Sahu, Advocate Mr. Utsav Mahisvar, Advocate : : Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

02.07.2026 (Order on Board)

1.

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) by the Claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 13.05.2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,89,000/- as compensation for the death of Kevtin Bai, who died in a road accident took place on 07.09.2012.

2.

Learned counsel for the Claimant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.3000/- per month which should be Rs.4498/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, Claims Tribunal also erred in not calculating any amount under the head of future prospect which ought to have been granted @ 40% of his income. Even, on other heads also less amount has been awarded. Therefore, to that extent, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of the deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on 3 notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

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.

In the case at hand, 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 quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimant, as below:- Heads Compensation Compensation Sr. No.

1. Income 2 Future Prospect awarded by the awarded by this Tribunal Rs.3000/- x 12 = Court Rs.4498/- x 12 = Rs.36,000/- NIL Rs.53,976/- (+) 40% (i.e.

3. Deduction (-) Rs.21,590/-) = Rs.75,566/- (-) (i.e. (i.e.

4. Multiplier

5. Other heads Total Rs.9000/-) = Rs. Rs.18,891/-) = 27,000/- (x) 17 Rs.56,674/- 17 (x) = = Rs.4,59,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.4,89,000/- Rs.9,63,466/- Rs.40,000/- Rs.10,03,466/-

6.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of 1 2 3

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned

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. NAFR MAC No. 1716 of 2019). ← Search more judgments