KALYANI RATHORE vs RAM MANOHAR SHARMA

1

CGHC010414302023 2026:CGHC:44519
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
DEWANGAN
Date:
2026.10.16
14:46:38
+0530
PRASHANT
DEWANGAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2091 of 2023
1 - Kalyani Rathore W/o Late Mukesh Rathore Aged About 37 Years R/o B.D.
Mahant Upnagar Janjgir, Tehsil- Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir- Champa, CG
2 - Anushka Rathore D/o Late Mukesh Rathore Aged About 9 Years Minor
Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Kalyani Rathore, W/o Mukesh
Rathore R/o B.D. Mahant Upnagar Janjgir, Tehsil- Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir-
Champa, CG
3 - Rudra Singh Rathore S/o Late Mukesh Rathore Aged About 7 Years Minor
Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Kalyani Rathore, W/o Mukesh
Rathore R/o B.D. Mahant Upnagar Janjgir, Tehsil- Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir-
Champa, CG
4 - Meenabai W/o Laxman Prasad Rathore Aged About 67 Years R/o B.D.
Mahant Upnagar Janjgir, Tehsil- Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir- Champa, CG
5 - Laxman Prasad Rathore S/o Late Sonsay Rathore Aged About 71 Years
R/o B.D. Mahant Upnagar Janjgir, Tehsil- Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir- Champa, CG
... Appellants
versus
1 - Ram Manohar Sharma S/o Late Ramsharan Sharma Aged About 53 Years
R/o Devnandan Nagar Phase- 2, Baima Nagoi Road, Bilapsur, Tehsil-
Bilaspur, Distt- Bilaspur, (C.G.) Driver Of The Vehicle Bearing No. CG- 10-
AD-8927
2 - Aruna Sharma W/o Ram Manohar Sharma Aged About 48 Years R/o
Devnandan Nagar Phase-2, Baima Nagoi Road, Bilaspur, Tehsil- Bilaspur,
Distt- Bilaspur, (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Bearing No. CG- 10-AD-8927)

2
3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co. Ltd Through Manager, T-8, 4th Floor
Gwalior Chamber, Vyapar Vihar Mainraod, Bilaspur, Distt- Bilaspur, (C.G.)
(Insurance Company Of The Vehicle Bearing No. CG- 10-AD-8927)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate
For Respondents No.1
and 2
: None
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate appears on
behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
14/10/2026
( )
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 the amount of
compensation, challenging the impugned award dated
25/09/2023, passed in Claim Case No.13/2023, whereby the
learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of
Rs.14,41,934/- as compensation for the death of Mukesh
Rathore, who died in a road accident which took place on
16/10/2022.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned
Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased
at Rs. 6,000/- per month. He further submits that the
Accountant of Jay Bharat English Medium School, Janjgir,
namely, Jitendra Kumar Paigwar, was examined as a witness,
who proved the salary certificate (Ex. P/15) issued by the
Principal of the said school. In support thereof, a certificate
dated 19.07.2023 (Ex. P/19) was also issued by the Principal,

3
according to which the deceased was working as an Office
Assistant and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 14,364/-. He
further submits that the amounts awarded by the learned
Claims Tribunal under the conventional heads of compensation
are inadequate.
3. It is further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 4,19,934/- towards medical expenses.
However, the accident occurred on 16.10.2022, and the
deceased succumbed to the injuries on 04.11.2022 after
remaining hospitalised for a period of 18 days. It is further
submitted that no amount has been awarded towards special
diet, transportation expenses, attendant charges, and pain and
suffering endured by the deceased during the period of
hospitalisation and treatment. It is, therefore, prayed that the
instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the
learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/Insurance
Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after duly
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on
record, has rightly awarded the compensation. He further
submits that the Principal of the school was not examined as a
witness, nor was any authorisation letter issued by the Principal
in favour of Jitendra Kumar Paigwar produced on record.
Furthermore, no bank statement was produced to substantiate
the salary claimed by the appellants. Therefore, the salary
certificate cannot be relied upon for the purpose of assessing

4
the income of the deceased. He further submits that the
compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just
and proper and does not warrant any 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. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of
the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-. However, the documents marked
as Ex. P/15 and Ex. P/19 indicate that the deceased was
employed as an Assistant accountant in a private school
affiliated with CBSE, Delhi, and contain relevant details
regarding his salary. The accident occurred on 16.10.2022, and,
as per the applicable minimum wages, the monthly wages for an
unskilled worker were Rs. 9,960/-, whereas those for a skilled
worker were Rs. 11,390/-. The cross-examination of Jitendra
Kumar Paigwar, the Accountant of the school, does not reveal
any material that would justify disbelieving the aforesaid
certificates. Accordingly, this Court, finding the said documents
reliable, assesses the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.
14,364/-.
7. Further, on the basis of the documents available on record, the
learned Tribunal has held that the deceased was married aged
about 41 years at the time of the accident. Having regard to the
number of claimants (5), the Tribunal has added 25% towards
future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards the personal and
living expenses of the deceased, and applied the multiplier of

5
‘14’. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid assessment is
just and proper and does not warrant any interference.
8. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.
77,000/- towards conventional head and Rs.4,19,934/- towards
medical expenses. However, this Court is of the opinion that,
the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,53,000/- towards
conventional heads and Rs. 4,50,000/- towards medical
expenses, attendant charges, special diet, transportation
expenses, pain and suffering by claimants during treatment etc.
To this extent, the impugned award warrants modification.
9. 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.
Heads Compensation
Compensation
No.
awarded by the
awarded by this
Tribunal
Court
1 Income Rs. 6,000/- x 12
Rs. 14364 x 12 =
=72,000/-
1,72,368/-
2. Future
(+)25% (i.e. Rs.
(+)25% (i.e. Rs.
prospect
18,000) = 90,000/-
43,092) = 2,15,460/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 22,500)
(-) 1/4 (i.e. 53,865) =
= 67,500/-
1,61,595/-
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

6
4. Multiplier (x) 14 = 9,45,000/- (x) 14 = 22,62,330/-
5. Other
Rs. 77,000/- Rs. 2,53,000/-
conventional
(16,500+16,500+44,0
heads
00 x 5)
6. Medical
Rs.4,19,934/- Rs.4,50,000/-
Expenses
Total Rs. 14,41,934/- Rs. 29,65,330/-
10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
Rs.14,41,934 /- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.29,65,330/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of
Rs.14,41,934/-, the appellants are held entitled for an
additional amount of Rs. 15,23,396 /-. The additional amount
of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from
filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its
realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall
remain intact.
11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
12. 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
Prashant