TULSI BAI KHANDE vs RAVISHANKAR VARMA

1
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO
Date:
2026.09.05
15:03:57
+0530
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO

CGHC010101062026 2026:CGHC:39086
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 828 of 2026
1 - Tulsi Bai Khande Wd/o Late Sandeep Dhritlahre, Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Umriya Road, Bilha Police Station Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).
2 - Kumari Devika D/o Late Sandeep Dhritlahre Aged About 13 Years Minor Through
The Mother (Natural Guardian ) Appellant No. 01, Smt. Tulsi Bai Khande R/o Village
Umriya Road, Bilha Police Station Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).
3 - Satyaprakash S/o Late Sandeep Dhritlahre Aged About 12 Years Minor Through
The Mother (Natural Guardian ) Appellant No. 01, Smt. Tulsi Bai Khande R/o Village
Umriya Road, Bilha Police Station Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).
4 - Kumari Swara D/o Late Sandeep Dhritlahre Aged About 4 Years Minor Through
The Mother (Natural Guardian ) Appellant No. 01, Smt. Tulsi Bai Khande R/o Village
Umriya Road, Bilha Police Station Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).
5 - Kumari Sonakshi D/o Late Sandeep Dhritlahre Aged About 2 Years Minor
Through The Mother (Natural Guardian ) Appellant No. 01, Smt. Tulsi Bai Khande
R/o Village Umriya Road, Bilha Police Station Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).
6 - Kavilash Dhritlahre S/o Late Dukhiram Dhritlahre Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village Umriya Road, Bilha Police Station Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - Ravishankar Varma S/o Chhediram Varma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Nahna Police Office Jota, Police Station Pathriya, District- Mungeli (C.G.) (Driver
And Owner Of The Vehicle No. C.G.- 28-E-4355 ).
2 – IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited ,through Branch Manager,
Branch Office Shop No. 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver Bhawan, Ring Road No. 01, In
Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of
The Vehicle No. C.G.- 28-E-4355 )
... Respondent
For the appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : .Though served, no representation is made.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

2
Order on Board
03.09.2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV
Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the
impugned award dated 17.09.2025 passed by the IX Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh in MACT No. 487/2020
whereby a total compensation of Rs.19,15,332/- has been awarded to the
claimants.
2 . As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the
MV Act, on 18.08.2020 deceased Sandeep met with a motor accident and died due
to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Appellant no.1 is widow,
appellants 2 to 5 are children and appellant no.6 is father of deceased. Thus the
appellants being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA
seeking a total compensation of Rs. 41 lakhs on various heads.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimants have pleaded that
the deceased Sandeep was earning Rs. 13,500 per month by doing the job of
Feeder under a contractor, but the learned Claims Tribunal had taken the lesser
income of deceased as Rs.7555/- per month. The amounts granted under the
conventional heads are also meagre, thereby, just compensation has not been
awarded. He prays that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation
awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have also perused the
records. .
5. In absence of any documentary evidence and considering the prevalent
market rates, it would be just and proper to take the monthly income to be
Rs.8860/- treating him as unskilled labour as per the the Chhattisgarh Minimum
Wages instead of Rs.7555/- as taken by the Tribunal and to that extent the
impugned award needs to be slightly modified. Thus the annual income comes to

3
Rs.1,06,320/- (8860 x 12). Since the age of deceased was found to be 26 years
and there are six dependents, following the principles laid down by Supreme Court,
the Tribunal has rightly added 40% future prospectus, deducted 1/4th towards
personal expenses and applied multiplier 17 which cannot be said to be
unsustainable. Thus the total loss of dependency is worked out to Rs. 18,97,812/- .
Under the other conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted Rs.2,64,000/- for loss
of consortium for all the 6 dependents; 16,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.16,500/-
for funeral expenses, which cannot be said to be on lower side.
6. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the decisions of
the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay
Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 ; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6
SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as below :
Sl.No . Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation awarded
by this Court
1. Total loss of
dependency 16,18,332/-
Income Rs.8860 X 12 =
1,06,320/- plus Future
Prospectus- 40% i.e.,
42,528 = 1,48,848/-
minus 1/4th deduction of
personal expenses i.e.,
37,212 = 1,11,636 x
17 multiplier =
18,97,812/-
2. Loss of estate 16,500/- 16,500/-
3. Funeral expenses 16,500/- 16,500/-
4. Loss of consortium or
loss of love and
affection for 6
claimants (44000 x 6)
2,64,000/-
2,64,000/-



Total Rs. 19,15,332/- 21,94,812/-

4
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.
19,15,332/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.21,94,812/- Hence,
after deducting the amount of Rs. 19,15,332/- the appellants are held entitled for
an additional sum of Rs.2,79,480/- . The additional amount of compensation shall
carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim application before the
Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall
remain intact.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is
modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove.
Sd/-
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judge
Rao