Chhattisgarh High Court
MAC/1019/2023 of VINOD KAUSHIK Vs ALI AHMED KHAN on 30 September 2026
2026:CGHC:42789 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1019 of 2023 1 - Vinod Kaushik S/o Late Matettar Lal Kaushik Aged About 42 Years Caste Kaushik, R/o Village Madanpur, Jhulan, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 -
CGHC010168922023
2026:CGHC:42789
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1019 of 2023
1 - Vinod Kaushik S/o Late Matettar Lal Kaushik Aged About 42
Years Caste Kaushik, R/o Village Madanpur, Jhulan, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
(Claimant)
2 - Nandini Kaushik D/o Vinod Kaushik Aged About 19 Years Caste Kaushik, R/o Village Madanpur, Jhulan, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)
3 - Vikas Kaushik D/o Vinod Kaushik Aged About 17 Years Through Guardian Father Vinod Kaushik, Caste Kaushik, R/o Village Madanpur, Jhulan, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)
4 - Virendra Kaushik D/o Vinod Kaushik Aged About 15 Years Through Guardian Father Vinod Kaushik, Caste Kaushik, R/o Village Madanpur, Jhulan, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)
5 - Umend Kunwar W/o Late Mahettar Lal Kaushik Aged About 65
Years Caste Kaushik, R/o Village Madanpur, Jhulan, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
(Claimant)
... Appellants
versus
1 - Ali Ahmed Khan S/o Abbas Khan Aged About 42 Years R/o New Bus Stand, High Tech, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle Bus No. C.G. 10 G 1442)
2 - Mohammad Sahnawaz Khan S/o Mohammad Ismil Khan R/o Imlipara, Gali No.4, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of The Vehicle Bus No.
C.G. 10 G 1442)
3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Rama Trade Centre, Near Bus Stand Opp. Rajeev Plaza Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellants
: Mr. Gulab Singh, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 and 2 : None
For Respondent No.3
: Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (01/10/2026)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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 14/03/2022, passed in Claim Case No. 48/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.12,11,000/- as compensation for the death of Sukwara Bai, who died in a road accident which took place on 14/02/2021.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding lesser compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month, whereas it ought to have been taken at Rs. 8,960/- per month in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He further submits that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side. There are a total of five claimants, whereas consortium has been awarded to only one claimant, although all five claimants are entitled to consortium. It is, therefore, prayed that the instant appeal may kindly be allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, while opposing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, submits that one of the five claimants is the mother-in-law of the deceased and, therefore, she is not entitled to consortium.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
5. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-. However, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 8,960/- (being the minimum wages prescribed at the relevant time). Further, the learned Claims Tribunal, considering that the deceased was married and aged about 39 years at the time of the accident and having regard to the number of claimants, added 40% towards future prospects to the income of the deceased, deducted one-fourth (1/4) of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of 15, which is found to be just and proper. However, under the conventional heads, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards consortium to only one claimant, who is the husband of the deceased, and a sum of Rs.33,000/- towards funeral expenses and other related rites, thereby awarding a total sum of Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads. Since four of the five claimants, excluding the mother-in- law of the deceased, are entitled to consortium, a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- is payable towards consortium. Further, a sum of
Rs.33,000/- towards funeral expenses and other related rites is considered appropriate. Accordingly, this Court awards a total sum of Rs.2,09,000/- under the conventional heads. To that extent, the impugned award warrants modification by re- assessing the monthly income of the deceased and by enhancing the compensation under the conventional heads.
6. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court
Income Rs.
x 12=72,000/- Rs. 8960 x 12 = 1,07,520/-
2. Future prospect (+)40%
(i.e.
Rs. 28,800)
= Rs.1,00,800/- (+)40%
(i.e.
Rs. 43,008) = 1,50,528/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 25,200) = 75,600/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 37,632) = 1,12,896/-
4. Multiplier
(x) 15 = 11,34,000/-
(x) 15 = 16,93,440/-
Other conventional heads Rs.
77,000/- (44,000+33,000) Rs. 2,09,000/- (44,000 x 4 + 33,000) Total Rs. 12,11,000/- Rs. 19,02,440/-
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.12,11,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.19,02,440/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of
(2009) 6 SCC 121
Rs.12,11,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.6,91,440/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application before the 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 Prashant