SMT. TULSI BAI vs LOKESHWAR PATEL

1

CGHC010131112025 2026:CGHC:44756
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 797 of 2025
1 - Smt. Tulsi Bai W/o Shobharam Darro Aged About 53 Years R/o
Village- Bendrapani, Police Station Keregaon, District- Dhamtari
(C.G.)
2 - Bharat Dhruv S/o Late Shobharam Darro Aged About 37 Years
R/o Village- Bendrapani, Police Station Keregaon, District- Dhamtari
(C.G.)
3 - Baldev S/o Late Shobharam Darro Aged About 31 Years R/o
Village- Bendrapani, Police Station Keregaon, District- Dhamtari
(C.G.)
4 - Baliram S/o Late Shobharam Darro Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village- Bendrapani, Police Station Keregaon, District- Dhamtari
(C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - Lokeshwar Patel S/o Komal Patel Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village- Banspara Kukrel, Police Station Keregaon, Tahsil Nagari,
District- Dhamtari (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tata No. Cg-
05/an-7259)
2 - Komal Patel S/o Shivprasad Patel Aged About 43 Years R/o
Village Banspara Kukrel, Police Station Keregaon, Tahsil Nagari,
District- Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tata No. Cg-
05/an-7259)
3 - Megma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through-
Branch Manager, Office At Office No. 501 And 509-512, Fifth Floor,
D.B. City Corporate Park, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tata No. Cg-05/an-7259)
... Respondents
Digitally signed
by HEERA LAL
SAHU
Date:
2026.10.16
10:46:43
+0530

2
For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sangeet Ku. Kushwaha, Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
(15.10.2026)
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
05.12.2024, passed in Claim Case No.146/2023, whereby the
learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of
Rs.5,77,320/- as compensation for the death of Late
Shobharam Darro (60 years old), who died in a road accident
which took place on 23.03.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a lesser
amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The Claims
Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.7,800/- per month, whereas the minimum wages were Rs.
9,960/- per month on the date of the accident i.e.
23.03.2023; therefore, the income of the deceased should be
considered on the higher side. The Tribunal has also erred in
deducting 1/2nd towards personal expenses from the income
of the deceased, as the deceased was married and there are 4
dependent persons; therefore, it should be 1/3rd. He also
submits that the Tribunal has awarded a lesser amount
under other conventional heads, which needs to be
enhanced. Therefore, the instant appeal should be allowed,
and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may
suitably be enhanced.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/insurance company

3
supported the impugned award.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and went
through the records with utmost circumspection.
5. In the present case, the learned Tribunal assessed the
deceased's monthly income at 7,800. According to the
₹
claimants, the deceased was approximately 60 years old,
worked as a laborer, and earned 12,000 per month, though ₹
no credible evidence was produced to substantiate this claim.
Furthermore, a review of the impugned award reveals that
the Tribunal deducted 1/2 toward personal and living
expenses from the deceased's income. However, considering
the number of claimants and dependents, the deduction
should properly be 1/3 as per settled legal principles.
Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances, it is
appropriate to assess the deceased's monthly income at
₹ 9,960, in accordance with the minimum wages notification
issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner,
Chhattisgarh, for unskilled labor. Additionally, while the
Tribunal awarded only 1,14,000 under conventional heads, ₹
this amount ought to be enhanced to 2,28,000. To this
₹
extent, the impugned award stands modified.
6. 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 @
3
Chuhru 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. 7,800 x 12 = Rs. 9,960 x 12 =
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

4
93,600/- 1,19,520/-
2. Future
prospect
(+)10% (i.e. Rs.
9,360) = 1,02,960/-
(+)10% (i.e. Rs.
11,952) =
1,31,472/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/2 (i.e. Rs.
51,480) = 51,480/-
(-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.
43,824) = 87,648/-
4. Multiplier (x) 9 = 4,63,320/- (x) 9 = 7,88,832/-
5 Other
conventional
heads
Rs. 1,14,000/-
[18,000+18,000+48,
Rs. 2,28,000/-
[18,000+18,000+
000+30,000]
(48,000x4)]
Total Rs. 5,77,320/- Rs. 10,16,832/-
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of
compensation of Rs.5,77,320/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.10,16,832/-. Hence, after
deducting the amount of Rs.5,77,320/-, the appellants are
held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,39,512/- . 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.
8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
9. 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
H.L. Sahu