JABINA BEE vs RAKESH KUMAR SAHU

1

CGHC010055612024 2026:CGHC:45856
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 361 of 2024
1 - Jabina Bee W/o Late Sheikh Shakir Khan Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bhatapara,
Panchsheel Nagar, P.S. and Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Sahil S/o Late Sheikh Shakir Aged About 11 Years (Wrongly Typed As Sheikhar Instead
of Sheikh) Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Jabina Bee, R/o Village Bhatapara,
Panchsheel Nagar, P.S. and Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Shohail Shakir S/o Late Sheikh Shakir Aged About 9 Years Minor through Natural
Guardian Mother Jabina Bee, R/o Village Bhatapara, Panchsheel Nagar, P.S. and Tahsil
Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Sheikh Rihana D/o Late Sheikh Shakir Aged About 5 Years Minor through Natural
Guardian Mother Jabina Bee, R/o Village Bhatapara, Panchsheel Nagar, P.S. and Tahsil
Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Sheikh Shoaib S/o Late Sheikh Shakir Aged About 3 Years Minor through Natural
Guardian Mother Jabina Bee, R/o Village Bhatapara, Panchsheel Nagar, P.S. and Tahsil
Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Ibrahim Ramaju Khatik S/o Ramaju Khatik Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Bhatapara,
Panchsheel Nagar, P.S. and Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Mehroom Nisha W/o Ibrahim Khatik Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Bhatapara,
Panchsheel Nagar, P.S. and Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
1 - Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Guharu Ram Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village
Dhaurabhata, Nayapara Near Durga Chowk, Post And P.S. Hirri, Tahsil Bilha, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Hyva No. C.G.-10 C 8953).
2 - Shah Stone Suppliers, Partner Girish Kumar Sahu R/o Bilaspur L - 10, Sheikh Colony,
Vinobha Nagar, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Hyva No. C.G.-10-C
8953)
3 - Branch Manager the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Ramatrade Centre, 1st
Floor, Old Bus Stand, Infront of Rajiv Plaza, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil and District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Hyva No. C.G.-10 C 8953) ... Respondents

2
For the appellants : Mr. A. L. Singraul, Advocate with Mr. Shalinee Jangde,
Advocate
For respondent no. 3 : Mr. Swati Agrawal, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Order on Board
29.10.2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
“MV Act”) has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 25.10.2023 passed
by the VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 1570/2022 whereby a total compensation
of Rs.22,14,536/- has been granted.
2 . As per the facts pleaded in claim application filed under Section 166
of the MV Act, deceased Shekh Shakir died in a motor accident occurred
on 22.10.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 who
drove the offending Motorcycle No. C.G. 10-C/8953. Appellant No.1 is the
widow, appellants 2,3,4 & 5 are minor children and appellants 6 & 7 are
parents of the deceased. They being legal heirs have filed claim application
u/s 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking a total compensation of Rs. 45 lakhs.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income taken by
the Tribunal is on lower side thereby just compensation has not been
worked out. He prays that the instant appeal be allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the
Tribunal has granted adequate compensation and the impugned award
needs no interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

3
6. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning monthly
income of Rs.30,000/- by dealing in cloth business. However, the Tribunal
took the meagre income of Rs. 8200/- per month, which seems to be on
lower side. In absence of any cogent reliable evidence regarding the income
of deceased and looking to the prevalent market rates, it would be
appropriate to take his monthly income to be Rs. 9960/- treating him as
unskilled labour as per the the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages applicable at
the time of accident occurred on 22.10.2022.
7. Since the age of deceased was found to be 28 years and there are 7
claimants, following the case-law laid down by Supreme Court, the
Tribunal has rightly added 40% future prospectus, deducted 1/5th
towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 17 which cannot be said
to be unsustainable.
8. The amounts granted under the other conventional heads like loss of
earning Rs.16,500/-, funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- and loss of consortium
Rs.3,08,000 for 7 claimants are not disputed by the appellants as they are
granted in conformity with the principle of 10% automatic enhancement.
9. 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
18,73,536/-

Rs.9960 X 12 =
1,19,520 plus 40%
Future Prospectus-
i.e., 47,808 =
1,67,328 minus
1/5th deduction
of personal expenses

4
i.e., 33,466 =
1,33,862 x 17
multiplier =
22,75,654/-
2, Loss of estate 16,500/- 16,500/-
3. Funeral expenses 16,500/- 16,500/-
4. Loss of consortium 3,08,000/-
(44000 x 7
Claimants)
3,08,000/-


Total Rs. 22,14,536/- 26,16,654/-
10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.
22,14,536/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.
26,16,654/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.22,14,536/- the
appellants are held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.4,02,118/ -. 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.
11. 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:
2026.11.02
12:11:38
+0530
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO