PARMESHWAR vs THE BRANCH MANAGER,

1

CGHC010229362026 2026:CGHC:45289
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1338 of 2026
1 - Parmeshwar S/o Shri Fulsai Aged About 48 Years R/o Village
Ghosa, Police Station Bhaiyathan District Surajpur (C.G.)
2 - Reshmi Bai W/o Shri Parmeshwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
Ghosa, Police Station Bhaiyathan District Surajpur (C.G.)
3 - Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Parmeshwar Aged About 14 Years (Minor)
Through His Natural Guardian I.E. Mother Smt. Reshmi Bai, R/o Village
Ghosa, Police Station Bhaiyathan District Surajpur (C.G.)
4 - Ankita D/o Shri Parmeshwar Aged About 3 Years (Minor) Through
The Natural Guardian i.e. Mother Smt. Reshmi Bai, R/o Village Ghosa,
Police Station Bhaiyathan District Surajpur (C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - The Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company,
Branch Office, Second Floor, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road,
Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ( Insurer Of Offending Vehicle
Truck No. CG216A1681)
2 - Ranjeet Singh S/o Late Ran Singh Aged About 60 Years Caste
Gond, R/o Village Chainpur, Ward No. 01, Police Station
Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ( Driver
Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. CG216A1681)
Digitally signed by
VIJAY BHARATRAO
PEKDE
Date: 2026.10.27
17:49:12 +0530

2
3 - Mohammad Irfan S/o Late Hazi Mohammad Aged About 71 Years
R/o Ward No. 18, Manendragarh, Police Station- Manendragarh, District
Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle
Truck No. CG216A1681)
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Utkarsha Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
(27.10.2026)
1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
2. 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 the amount of
compensation, challenging the impugned award dated
02.05.2026, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.14/2025,
whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of
Rs.15,83,508/- as compensation for the death of Late Rakesh
Kumar @ Rajkumar, who died in a road accident which took place
on 21.10.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned
Claims Tribunal has committed error of law in assessing the
monthly income of the deceased. The deceased at the relevant
time was Mason and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, however, the
learned Tribunal only assessed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.8,965/- for unskilled labour, which is not justified.
Therefore, the impugned award needs to be enhanced suitably.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respective
respondents opposing the argument advanced by learned counsel

3
for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal, after
appreciating oral and documentary evidence, has rightly passed
the impugned award and has rightly awarded amount under the
conventional heads, which needs no interference by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records
with utmost circumspection.
6. In the present case, the appellants/claimants pleaded before the
Claims Tribunal that the deceased Rakesh Kumar @ Raj Kumar
was Mason by profession and earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
However, no cogent and reliable evidence was adduced by the
appellants/claimants to substantiate this claim. The learned
Tribunal has indeed taken the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.8,965/-. Considering the deceased as unskilled labourer at the
time of accident i.e. 21.10.2024, it would be proper to take his
monthly income at Rs.10,428/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum
Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner,
Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour. Therefore, to that extent the
impugned award needs to be modified.
7. The learned claims Tribunal, considering the nature of job of
deceased (self employed) at the time of accident 21.10.2024, the
fact that he was unmarried aged 21 years, and number of
dependents (04), has rightly taken future prospect of 40%,
deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of
18 respectively, along with Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,92,000/- (48,000x4)
towards filial consortium, which, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, is just and proper & calls for no interference.
8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the
judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of

4
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. 8965x12 =
Rs.10,428x12 =
Rs.1,07,580/-
Rs.1,25,136/-
2. Future
prospect
(+)40% (i.e.
Rs.43,032) =
Rs.1,50,612/-
(+)40% (i.e. Rs.
Rs.50,054/-) =
Rs.1,75,190/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/2 (i.e.
Rs.75,306/-) =
(-) 1/2 (i.e.
Rs.87,595/-) =
Rs.75,306/-/-
Rs.87,595/-/-
4. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs
13,55,508/-
(x) 18 =
Rs.15,76,710/-
5 Towards
Loss of
consortium
to all 03
claimants
(Rs.48,000 x 4)
Rs. 48,000 x 4 =
Rs.1,92,000/-
Rs.1,92,000/-
6. Towards
Loss of
Estate
Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/-
7. Towards
funeral
expenses
Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/-
Total Rs.15,83,508/- Rs.18,04,710/-
9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
Rs.15,83,508/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.18,04,710/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of
Rs.15,83,508/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional
1(2017) 16 SCC 680
2(2009) 6 SCC 121
3(2018) 18 SCC 130

5
amount of Rs.2,21,202/- . 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.
10. In the result, The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
11. 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
pekde