NEERA RAI vs KAMAL SINGH RAJPOOT

1

CGHC010406712023 2026:CGHC:45965
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2090 of 2023
1 - Neera Rai W/o Late Bhagwani Prasad Rai Aged About 46 Years.
2 - Ravi Rai S/o Late Bhagwani Prasad Rai Aged About 23 Years.
3 - Love Kumar Rai S/o Late Bhagwani Prasad Rai Aged About 26
Years.
All are resident of Village Barbaspur, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha, District
Kabirdham (C.G.)
... Appellants.
versus
1 - Kamal Singh Rajpoot S/o Late Mangal Singh Rajpoot Aged About 50
Years R/o Indira Colony, Near Durga Mandir, Near L.I.C. Office, P.S.
Madan Mahal Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (M.P.) (Driver)
2 - M/s Kanker Rodways R/o Infront Of Gandhi Udyan, Civil Lines
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner)
3 - Branch Manager / Divisional Manager New India Assurance
Company Limited, Post Box No.35, First Floor Tank Business Tower,
Top Of Karnataka Bank, Fafadih Chawk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
(Insurer)
... Respondents
(Cause-title is taken from CIS)
For Appellants : Mr. Swapnil Thawani, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate
For Respondent No.2.
:
None.
For Respondent No.3
:
Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board

2
30.10.2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the
appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of
compensation, challenging the impugned award dated
24.03.2023, passed in Claim Case No.64/2021, whereby the
learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.5,75,200/-
as compensation for the death of Late Bhagwani Prasad Rai, who
died in a road accident which took place on 28.07.2021.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
award passed by learned Tribunal is on lower side and, therefore,
liable to modified suitably. He further submits that the deceased
was a RMP Doctor and used to earn Rs.1,000/- per day and
accordingly Rs.30,000/- per month, but learned Tribunal assessed
his income only Rs.6,000/- per month, which is not justified. He
further submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants towards loss of consortium,
which is inadequate and not just and proper. Under the
conventional heads also the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded
meager compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company
supporting the impugned award submits that the learned Claims
Tribunal, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, has
rightly passed the impugned award, which does not call for any
interference by this Court.

3
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
counsel for respondent No.3, considered their rival submissions
made herein-above and went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
5. In the present case, the appellants/claimants pleaded before the
Claims Tribunal that the deceased was a RMP Doctor and used to
earn Rs.1,000/- per day and accordingly Rs.30,000/- per month,
but learned Tribunal assessed his income only Rs.6,000/- per
month. As regards the monthly income of the deceased, the
claimants did not produce any credible evidence which could
establish that the deceased was a RMP Doctor and used to earn
Rs.1,000/- per day. Considering that the accident took place on
28.07.2021 and deceased left behind 03 dependents, it would
proper to take his monthly income as Rs.9,200/- as per the
Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of
Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour.
6. The learned Claims Tribunal, considering the date of accident,
nature of work/job of deceased, his age (58 years) and number of
dependents (03), has rightly taken future prospect of 10%,
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier
of 9 respectively alongwith Rs.30,000/- towards repairing of
motorcycle. However, amount awarded towards loss of consortium,
estate and funeral expenses, do not appear to be just and
reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, which
requires to be modified/enhanced suitably.

4
7. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the
judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of
1
National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi , Sarla
2
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors and
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
3
Ram & Ors , this Court is computing the compensation as below:-
Sr.
No.
Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this Court
1 Income Rs.6,000/- Rs.9,200 x 12 =
1,10,400/-
2. Future
prospect
(+) 10% (+) 10% (i.e. Rs.11,040)
= 1,21,440/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (-) 1/3 (i.e.40,480) =
80,960/-
4. Multiplier (x) 9 (x) 9 = 7,28,640/-
5 Towards
Loss of
consortium.
Rs. 1,20,000/-
Rs. 44,000 x 3 = Rs.
(Rs.40,000 X 3)
1,32,000/-
(Rs.44,000/- to each 3
claimants.)
6. Towards
Loss of
Estate
Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/-
7. Towards
funeral
expenses
Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/-
8. For
Motorcycle
repairing
Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.5,75,200/- Rs.9,23,640/-
1(2017) 16 SCC 680
2(2009) 6 SCC 121
3(2018) 18 SCC 130

5
8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
Rs.5,75,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.9,23,640/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of
Rs.5,75,200/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional
amount of Rs.3,48,440/-. The additional amount of compensation
shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest
of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
10. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing
"the enhanced amount" in this appeal as against the award made
by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in
Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may
be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the
concerned area wherein the claimants resides.

Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
J.