Rao High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:49204 NAFR NIRMALA RAO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 803 of 2021 1 - Guruvari Bai Chouhan W/o Late Ratiram Chouhan Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 2 Chatipali, P.S. Dabhara, House No. 18 Chandansingh Para Tilaimuda, Tehsil Raigarh P.S. Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devanand Chouhan S/o Late Ratiram Chouhan Aged About 17 Years (Now 19 Years), R/o Ward No. 2 Chatipali, P.S. Dabhara, House No. 18 Chandansingh Para Tilaimuda, Tehsil Raigarh P.S. Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chandni Chouhan D/o Late Ratiram Chouhan Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Mother Guruvari Bai Chouhan, W/o Late Ratiram Chouhan, Age 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 2 Chatipali, P.S. Dabhara, House No. 18 Chandansingh Para Tilaimuda, Tehsil Raigarh P.S. Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Veena Chouhan D/o Late Ratiram Chouhan Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Mother Guruvari Bai Chouhan, W/o Late Ratiram Chouhan, Age 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 2 Chatipali, P.S. Dabhara, House No. 18 Chandansingh Para Tilaimuda, Tehsil Raigarh P.S. Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nand Kishor Chouhan S/o Late Ratiram Chouhan Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Mother Guruvari Bai Chouhan, W/o Late Ratiram Chouhan, Age 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 2 Chatipali, P.S. Dabhara, House No. 18 Chandansingh Para Tilaimuda, Tehsil Raigarh P.S. Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 - Heera Chouhan W/o Sadhuram Chouhan Aged About 65 Years Minor Through Mother Guruvari Bai Chouhan, W/o Late Ratiram Chouhan, Age 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 2 Chatipali, P.S. Dabhara, House No. 18 Chandansingh Para Tilaimuda, Tehsil Raigarh P.S. Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) 2 versus 1 - Babulal Sidar S/o Ratthuram Sidar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sirourli, P.S. Chandrapur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver Vehicle No. Cg 13 D 6922).
Legal Reasoning
2 - Ritesh Agrawal S/o Shri Pawan Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o Hatri Chowk Chandrapur, P.S. Chandrapur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgah. (Owner Vehilce No. C.G. 13 D 6922). 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Rama Trade Center, 1st Floor, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattigarh. (Insurer Vehicle No. Cg 13 D 6922) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants For Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : : : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate holding the brief of Shri D.L. Dewangan, Advocate. Shri Swayam Tehanguria, Advocate. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.09.2025 1. The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 514 of 2019 dated 31.8.2021, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the sum of Rs.11,72,183/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Ratiram Chouhan. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants would submit that on 23.2.2019, the deceased was going towards Raigarh and at that time, 3 the offending vehicle Hyva bearing registration No.C.G. 13D 6922 dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, consequently, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. She would submit that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 45 years, working as a Mason by profession and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. She would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously assessed the notional income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month, whereas according to the minimum wages matrix applicable in the month of February, 2019, the minimum wages was Rs.8,790/-. She would further contend that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of consortium to five of the claimants. She would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would contend that the claimants failed to establish the fact that the deceased was a Mason and that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 would support the contention made by counsel for respondent No.3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The record would show that the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- per month. However, the claimants have proved the fact that the deceased was working as a 4 Mason. In absence of evidence with regard to fixed income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the earnings of the deceased according to minimum wages matrix. According to minimum wages matrix applicable in February, 2019, the wage for a semiskilled labourer was Rs.8,790/-. The Learned Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.8,790/- while assessing the loss of dependency. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to appellants No.2 to 6. 7. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, claimants No.2 to 6 would be entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium with an additional amount of 20%. 8. Considering the above-stated facts, the compensation is being revisited herein-below: Sr. No. 1. 2. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 8,790 x 12 = Rs. 1,05,480/- Future Prospect 25% (18,800/-) 25% (26,370/-) (72,000 + 18,800 = 90,000/- (1,05,480 + 26,370 = 1,73,880/- 3. Deduction 1/4th (90,000 – 22,500 = 67,500/-) 1/4th 32,962 = 98,888/-) (1,31,850 – 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = Rs. 9,45,200/- (x) 14 = Rs. 13,84,432/- (67,500 x 14) (98,888 x 14) 5. 6. 7. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- 5 (for appellant No. 1) 8. Loss of consortium(for appellants No. 2 to 6) - - Rs. 2,40,000/- (48,000 x 5 = 2,40,000/-) 9. Medical Expenses 1,05,183/- 1,05,183/- TOTAL Rs.11,72,183/- Rs. 18,06,615/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.11,72,183/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.18,06,615/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.11,72,183/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.6,34,432/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the interim order, if any, granted earlier is hereby vacated. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge