VIRENDRA KUMAR BADA vs RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

1

CGHC010487772025 2026:CGHC:46230
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2522 of 2025
1 - Virendra Kumar Bada S/o Pulikar Bada Aged About 54 Years R/o Police
Line Parpa, Quter No. E/g-33, Jagdalpur, P.S. Parpa, Distt. Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt. Kanta Bada W/o Virendra Bada Aged About 47 Years No. EG/33,
Jagdalpur, P.S. Parpa, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Amit Kumar Bada S/o Virendra Bada Aged About 25 Years No. EG/33,
Jagdalpur, P.S. Parpa, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants
versus
1 - Rajesh Kumar Gupta S/o Kalu Aged About 34 Years R/o Loharpara
Vishreshwaraiya Ward No. 11 Bairamgarh, Distt. Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
(Driver).
2 - Vishnu Singh Thakur S/o Arjun Singh Thakur R/o Village Kotrapal,
Matvada Bhopalpatnam, Distt. Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. (Owner).
3 - Branch Manager Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Office 107,
107 First Floor Walfort Zone Building Old Bilaspur Road Fafadih Chouk
Raipur, Post and Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents
For the appellants : Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate
For respondent no.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
(order on Board)
02.11.2026
1. Heard on I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed under section 5 of the Limitation
Act. There is delay of 26 days in filing appeal.
On due consideration of the grounds stated in application which

2
is supported by the affidavit of appellant no.1 and since this appeal
has been filed by the claimants, the delay of 26 days is condoned and
I.A.No.1 is allowed.
Heard on admission.
With the consent of both the parties the matter is heard finally.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
“MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging
the impugned award dated 28.06.2025 passed by the Ist Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (Bastar) Chhattisgarh in Claim Case
No. 152/2023 whereby a total compensation of Rs 15,40,800/- has been
granted.
3 . As per the facts pleaded in claim application filed under Section 166
of the MV Act, deceased Vikas Kumar Bada, aged about 22 years died in a
motor accident occurred on 22.11.2022 at about 4.00 pm due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent no.1 who drove the offending Pick Up
vehicle No. CG-18-L/4831 and hit the deceased’s motorcycle. Appellants 1
& 2 are parents and appellant no.3 is brother of deceased. They being legal
heirs have filed claim application u/s 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking a total
compensation of Rs.54 lakhs.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income taken by
the Tribunal is on lower side thereby, just compensation has not been
rd
awarded. He submits that the deceased has passed out B.Sc. (3 year)
examination and while considering the income of deceased, his educational
qualifications and future career prospects ought to have been given due
weight rather than relying on baseline structural parameters. He prays
that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the
Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced to that extent.

3
5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3/Insurer submits that the
Tribunal has granted adequate compensation and the impugned award
needs no interference.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions and perused the record.
7. The claimants pleaded that the deceased had passed the B.Sc.,
degree examination and was earning a monthly income to the tune of
Rs.31,000/- by coaching and imparting education to the students. The
claimants have produced the marksheet of B.Sc. (Third Year) as Ex.P-15-C
showing the higher educational qualification of deceased. The mother of
deceased Smt. Kanta Bada (claimant/applicant no.2) has been examined as
A.W.1 and stated that her son was doing the job of coaching instructor and
was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, in absence of any cogent
reliable evidence, the Tribunal took the notional income of deceased as Rs.
9000/- per month treating him as unskilled labour, which seems to be on
lower side.
8. In a decision rendered in Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh 2020
SCC OnLine SC 1562 Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that the
notional income of a student pursuing a professional or higher degree
course should not be restricted to minimum wages. The court emphasized
that future potential earnings upon graduation must dictate the baseline.
9. In Sebati Nath & Ors. v. Shriram General Insurance Company
Ltd. [(2025) SCC Online SC 3468] , the Supreme Court ruled that in motor
accident compensation cases where documentary proof of income is absent,
Tribunals must apply reasonable guesswork and the preponderance of
probability rather than strict rules of evidence.
10. Further in case of Meena Pawaia and others Versus Ashraf Ali
and others, (2021) 17 SCC 148 where the deceased was bachelor aged
abou 21-22 years styding in 3rd/4th semester of engineering at the time of

4
accident/death, the Supreme Court held that the deceased had a bright
future and accordingly granted the future economic loss at Rs.14,000/- per
month.
11. Therefore, applying the above position of law laid down by Supreme
Court to the facts of the present case and looking to the age and
educational qualification of deceased, it would be appropriate to take
monthly income of deceased to Rs.14,000/-.
12. Since the deceased was found to be unmarried person of 22 years of
age and there are 3 claimants following the case-law laid down by Supreme
Court, the Tribunal has rightly added 40% future prospectus, deducted
one-half ( 1/2) towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 18 which
cannot be said to be unsustainable.
13. Under the other conventional heads the Tribunal has adequately
granted Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate; Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses
and Rs.1,44,000/- for loss of consortium which are not disputed by the
appellants
14. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the
decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company
Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 ; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is
computing the compensation as below :
Sl.No . Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this
Court
1. Total loss of
dependency
13,60,800/-

Rs14,000 X 12 =
1,68,000 plus
Future Prospectus-
40% i.e., 2,35,200 =
minus one-half (½)
deduction of
personal expenses
i.e., 1,17,600/- =
x 18 multiplier =

5
21,16,800/-

2, Loss of estate 18,000/- 18,000/ -
3. Funeral expenses 18,000/- 18,000/-
4. Loss of consortium 1,44,000/-
(48000 x 3
Claimants)

1,44,000/-

Total Rs. 15,40,800/- 22,96,800/-
15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.
15,40,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs
22,96,800/- Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 15,40,800/- the
appellants are held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.7,56,000/-. The
additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of filing claim application before the Tribunal till its
realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain
intact.
16. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award
is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove.
Sd/-
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judge
Rao
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO
Date:
2026.11.04
10:02:43
+0530
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO