YOGITA JHULEKAR @ YOGITA SONKER vs SAHIL KUMAR TARKHAN

1

CGHC010085542019 2026:CGHC:44948
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
The date which the
The date when
The date when the
case is reserved for
Judgment is
Judgment is uploaded
order
pronounced
9-10-2026 16-10-2026 16-10-2026
MAC No. 605 of 2019
Yogita Jhulekar @ Yogita Sonker W/o Shri Lekh Ram Jhulekar Aged About
30 Years R/o Village Halekasa Post Shikari, P.S.- Churia, District-
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh...............(Claimant)
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Sahil Kumar Tarkhan S/o Suram Chand Tarkhan Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village Dhandal, P.S. And Tahsil- Ramnagar, District- Udhampur, Jammu And
Kashmir...........(Driver)
2 - Rakesh Kumar S/o Davindra Kumar Occupation- Transportation, Prop
M/s National Garage, B.C. Road, Jammu Tavi, R/o Rajbag, Tahsil-
Heeranagar, District- Kathua, Jammu And Kashmir........(Owner)
3 - Shrieeram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch
Manager, Office At Second Floor, Thakur Market, Opposite Dr. Baldev
Hospital, Dhangu Road, Pathankot, Jammu And Kashmir, Through Branch
Manager Shreeram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office At
4th Floor, Maruti Hights, Near S.K.Y. Maruti Dealer, G.E. Road, Raipur,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh............(Insurance Company)
--- Respondents

2
For appellant : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Adv.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Adv.
For other respondents : None appears
MAC No. 791 of 2019
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager 2nd
Floor, Thakur Market Opposite Dr. Baldev Hospital, Dhangu Road, Pathankot
J And K ) Regional Office 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Maruti
Dealorship, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant
No. 3)
---Appellant
Versus
1 - Smt. Yogita Jhulekar @ Yogita Sonekar, W/o Lekhram Jhulekar Aged
About 30 Years R/o Village Halekosa, Post Shikari Mahaka, Police Station
Churiya, Tehsil Churiya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimant )
2 - Sahil Kumar Tarkhan S/o Suramchand Tarkhan Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village Dhandal, Police Station And Tehsil Ramnagar, District Udhampur J
And K ) (Driver )
3 - Rakesh Kumar S/o Davindra Kumar , S/o Davindra Kumar, R/o Rajbhag,
Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua J And K ) (Owner )
--- Respondents
For appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Adv.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Adv.
For other respondents : None appears.
(HON’BLE MR. SANTOSH SHARMA, J.)
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Since both these misc. appeals arise out of the same award passed by
the Claims Tribunal in same claim case, they are being disposed of by
this common judgment.
2. (a) MAC No. 605/2019 is claimant's appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by  2nd Additional Motor

3
Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short “the Tribunal”) in
Claim Case No. 175/2016 vide award dated 19-11-2018.
(b) MAC No. 791/2019 has been preferred by the Insurance
company against the above award for exonerating it from payment of
compensation amount.
For convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Claims Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 27-6-2016, the claimant,
along with her husband, Lekhram Jhulekar, and other family members,
was travelling from Bhopal to her home at Village Halekosa, District
Rajnandgaon, in a Mahindra car bearing Registration No. CG-08-W-
9111. When they reached the river bridge near Village Sukhtawa, upon
seeing a Maruti Omni car approaching from the opposite direction, the
driver of the Mahindra car stopped the vehicle on his side of the road.
At that time, the truck bearing Registration No. JK-08-C-6468, driven
by non-applicant No. 1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner, hit the Mahindra car from behind. As a result of the accident,
the claimant was severely trapped inside the car and sustained
serious injuries to various parts of her body. She was subsequently
hospitalized for treatment. In connection with the incident, Crime No.
68/2016 was registered against non-applicant No. 1 at Police Station
Kesla, District Hoshangabad, for offences punishable under Sections
279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The claimant thereafter
filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

4
nd
1988, before the Court of the 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, District Rajnandgaon (CG), seeking compensation for the
injuries sustained by her in the accident.
4. As against the compensation of Rs. 40,55,000/- claimed by the
claimant, by filing application under Section 166 of the   Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) for the injuries sustained by her in the
motor accident on 27-6-2016, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.
19,20,900/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of application till it is actually paid.
5. Upon a close scrutiny of the evidence adduced, the learned Tribunal
held that, on 27.06.2016, respondent No. 1/driver, while driving the
Tata truck bearing registration No. JK 08/C/6468 (hereinafter referred
to as the “offending vehicle”), owned by respondent No. 2 and insured
with respondent No. 3, rashly and negligently dashed against the car
bearing registration No. CG 08/W/9111, in which claimant was
traveling, thereby causing the accident. The claimant sustained
permanent disability of 25% as a result of the accident. The Tribunal
further held that it was not proved that the offending vehicle was being
driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Accordingly, the claimant was held entitled to receive compensation of
Rs. 19,20,900/- from respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant in MAC No. 605/2019 submits that,
having regard to the evidence available on record and the injuries
sustained by the claimant, the compensation awarded by the learned

5
Tribunal is grossly inadequate. He further submits that the learned
Claims Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation under
the head of loss of future income. He also submits that, in cases
involving personal injuries, compensation is required to be determined
under the heads of pecuniary damages (special damages) and non-
pecuniary damages (general damages); however, the learned Tribunal
has failed to properly assess the compensation under these heads. He
further submits that the claimant had produced an income tax
certificate in support of her income, but the learned Tribunal failed to
properly appreciate the same and assessed her monthly income at Rs.
35,000/- instead of Rs. 40,000/-. Lastly, he submits that, owing to the
accident, the claimant was unable to work for eight months, whereas
the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for loss of income for
only four months. He, therefore, prays that the compensation awarded
by the learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in MAC No.
791/2019, assailing the impugned award, submits that the learned
Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the claimant at
Rs. 35,000/-, as there was no documentary evidence to establish that
she was earning Rs. 40,000/- per month from her profession as a
teacher at Jhulekar Coaching , which is run by her husband. Learned
counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding
Rs. 16,80,000/- towards future loss of income, as the claimant is
engaged in the profession of teaching and, having regard to the nature
of her occupation, she can resume her profession. Therefore, the

6
award under the said head is unjustified and liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to
properly apply the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another , (2011) 1 SCC 343, while
assessing the compensation payable to the claimant for the injuries
sustained in the accident. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the
compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the
higher side and is not justified by the evidence available on record. He,
therefore, prays that the impugned award be suitably modified by
reducing the compensation awarded to the claimant.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the learned Tribunal, including the impugned award.
9. In both the appeals, the only question for consideration is the quantum
of compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly
income of the claimant at Rs. 35,000/- instead of Rs. 40,000/-. While
assessing the income, the learned Tribunal observed that the claimant
had admitted that she had not produced any documentary evidence to
establish that she was earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. Although she
was an educated woman and was stated to be running a coaching
class, the learned Tribunal, upon considering her Income Tax Returns
for the assessment years 2015–2016, 2016–2017 and 2017–2018,
concluded that she was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month from the
coaching class.

7
10. Upon a careful examination of the aforesaid finding of the learned
Claims Tribunal, this Court finds no irregularity or perversity therein.
While determining the income of a claimant in a motor accident claim,
the Tribunal may, where necessary, resort to a reasonable estimate
based on the evidence available on record. The claimant is required to
establish her case on the touchstone of the preponderance of
probabilities, and the strict rules of evidence are not required to be
applied with the same rigour as in ordinary civil or criminal
proceedings.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rashmirekha Tripathi and Another
v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Shriram General
Insurance Company Limited and Others [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 654],
while dealing with the determination of a person's income, has
observed in paragraphs 19 and 20 as under:-
“ 19. When it comes to self-employed/individuals carrying
out their own business, in our view, the average of the
income specified in the ITRs of up to the previous three
years is to be taken as a reference point for assessment of
annual income from their business. There may also be a
scenario where only one or two ITRs have been filed.
Given such scenarios and the fluctuation of income in
these professions, surrounding circumstances are also to
be taken into consideration. These would include:-
a) The nature of the business (including
geographic location, category etc.);

8
b) Growth pattern of the business and impact of
death on the business;
c) Potential growth of business (for instance
certain businesses are capital intensive at the
outset and are profitable at scale/in the future);
d) Negative income (certain businesses may
require losses in the initial years, which may not
reflect the true financial standing); and
e) Any other relevant factor relating to the
business.
20. The date when the ITRs are filed would also become a
relevant consideration, as there may be scenarios where
inflated income is showcased after death/injury. In these
circumstances, the surrounding factors of the business
would become more relevant. However, if sufficiently
supported by financial statements, such ITRs may also be
taken into consideration.”
12. In the instant case, the claimant produced IRTs of three years i.e.
2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018. ITR of the year 2015-2016 shows
that source of income of the claimant was running of coaching class.
Aforesaid ITR was filed prior to the accident, therefore, it cannot be
said that, this document was made for getting undue benefits. It
appears to be reliable. There is nothing on record to disbelieve on the
said ITRs.
13. Learned Claims Tribunal, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, has not committed any illegality while

9
assessing the income of the claimant, therefore, the contention raised
by the Insurance company in MAC No. 791/2019 is not sustainable.
14. So far as percentage of disability is concerned, relying on the decision
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), learned
Claims Tribunal assessed 25% of permanent disability. The learned
Tribunal observed that Dr. Prakash Bhalerao (P.W. 4) had admitted
that the disability was confined to the affected part of the body and did
not extend to the whole body. He had further stated that the condition
could be improved through physiotherapy undertaken from time to
time. In view of the aforesaid evidence, this Court finds that the
learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the permanent disability of the
claimant at 25% in respect of functional disablement for whole body.
Accordingly, no interference with the aforesaid finding of the learned
Tribunal is warranted.
15. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant any
interference.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the appeals, being devoid of
merit, are dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma)
JUDGE
Pathak
AVANISH
KUMAR
PATHAK
Digitally signed by
AVANISH KUMAR
PATHAK
Date: 2026.10.16
16:59:40 +0530