SMT. AMBIKA BARIK vs Jagdish Sahu

1

CGHC010310182025 2026:CGHC:46468
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1563 of 2025
1 - Smt. Ambika Barik W/o Late Satpathi Barik Aged About 50 Years.
2 - Manvi Barik D/o Late Satpathi Barik Aged About 12 Years. Minor
Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ambika Barik (Appellant No. 1).
3 - Ritesh Barik S/o Late Satpathi Barik Aged About 20 Years.
All are R/o Ward No. 09, Jhilmila Saraipali, Police Station Saraipali,
District Mahasamund C.G.
...Appellants
versus
1 - Jagdish Sahu S/o Parmanand Sahu R/o Village Nunpani, Police
Station And Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund C.G. (Driver)
2 - Ishwar S/o Ganesh Ram R/o Village Bendari, Post Bichhiya, Police
Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund C.G. (Owner)
3 - Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Through The
Manager, Address- First Floor, Ashoka Milenium Building Ring Road No.
01, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur C.G. (Insurer).
... Respondents
(Cause-title is taken from CIS)
For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.1.
:
Mr. Sudhir Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2
:
Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate
For Respondent No.3
:
Ms. Manshi Bundey, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
03.11.2026

2
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
28.04.2024, passed in Claim Case No.09/2024, whereby the
learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.9,22,288/-
as compensation for the death of Late Satpathi Barik, who died on
02.01.2024 in a road accident which took place on 20.12.2023.
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. She further submits that on the date of
accident, deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing
catering work, but learned Tribunal assessed his income only
Rs.7,410/- per month, which is not justified. Under the
conventional heads also, the learned Tribunal has awarded very
meager compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably.
3. Learned counsel for the respective respondents supporting the
impugned award and would submit that the learned Tribunal, after
appreciating oral and documentary evidence, has rightly passed
the impugned award, which does not call for any interference by
this Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
counsel for the respective respondents, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records
with utmost circumspection.

3
5. In the present case, the appellants/claimants pleaded before the
Claims Tribunal that on the date of accident, deceased was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing catering work, but learned
Tribunal assessed his income only Rs.7,410/- per month. As
regards the occupation and monthly income of the deceased, the
claimants did not produce any credible evidence which could
establish that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by
doing catering work. Considering that the accident took place on
20.12.2023 and deceased left behind 03 dependents, it would
proper to take his monthly income at Rs.10,100/- 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 (53 years) and number of
dependents (03), has rightly taken future prospect of 10%,
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier
of 11 respectively.
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:-
1(2017) 16 SCC 680
2(2009) 6 SCC 121
3(2018) 18 SCC 130

4
Sr.
No.
Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this Court
1 Income Rs.7,410/- Rs.10,100 x 12 =
1,21,200/-
2. Future
prospect
(+) 10% (+) 10% (i.e. Rs.12,120)
= 1,33,320/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (-) 1/3 (i.e.44,440) =
88,880/-
4. Multiplier (x) 11 (x) 11 = 9,77,680/-
5. For
attendant
and special
diet
Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
6. Towards
Loss of
consortium.
Rs.1,44,000/-
Rs.1, 44,000
(Rs.48,000 X 3)
(Rs.48,000 X 3)
6. Towards
funeral
expenses
and loss of
Estate
Rs.36,000/-
(18,000 + 18000)
Rs.36,000/-
(18,000 + 18000)
Total Rs.9,22,288/- Rs.11,82,680/-
8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
Rs.9,22,288/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.11,82,680/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of
Rs.9,22,288/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional
amount of Rs.2,60,392/-. 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.

5
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.