Chhattisgarh High Court
MAC/1607/2023 of SMT. USHA YADAV Vs NARAYAN BARIHA on 30 September 2026
2026:CGHC:42792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1607 of 2023 1 - Smt. Usha Yadav W/o Late Yashwant Kumar Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bhilai, Post Office And Police Station- Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant) 2 - Kumari Ragani Yadav D/o Late Yashwant
CGHC010316452023
2026:CGHC:42792
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1607 of 2023
1 - Smt. Usha Yadav W/o Late Yashwant Kumar Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bhilai, Post Office And Police Station- Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant)
2 - Kumari Ragani Yadav D/o Late Yashwant Kumar Yadav Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Usha Yadav R/o Village Bhilai, Post Office And Police Station- Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant)
3 - Kumari Mansi Yadav D/o Late Yashwant Kumar Yadav Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Usha Yadav R/o Village Bhilai, Post Office And Police Station- Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant)
4 - Bhagirathi Yadav S/o Brijlal Yadav Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Bhilai, Post Office And Police Station- Arang, District Raipur
(C.G.) (Claimant)
5 - Smt. Chameli Yadav W/o Bhagirathi Yadav Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Bhilai, Post Office And Police Station- Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant)
... Appellants
versus
1 - Narayan Bariha S/o Late Ghashiram Bariha Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Durugpali, Police Station- Pithaura, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of Truck No. Cg-04 Hp 3665)
2 - Pushpendra Singh S/o Late Pritam Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Simaran Hights Society, Mahavir Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of Truck No. Cg-04 Hp 3665)
3 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Senior Manager, Address- Divisional Manager Office-1, Fafadih Chauk, Tank Business Tower, 1st Floor Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurance Company Of Truck No. Cg-04 Hp 3665)
... Respondents
For Appellants/Claimants
:
Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :
None.
For Respondent No. 3
:
Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Adv.
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 09.03.2023, passed in Claim Case No.304/2020, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.18,25,480/- as compensation for the death of Late Yashwant Kumar Yadav (33 years old), who died in a road accident which took place on 05.01.2020.
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. He further submits that the claimants/appellants exhibited a salary certificate vide Exhibit P-22 and examined Nitin Khandelwal (AW-3) to prove the income of the deceased. Therefore, the deceased's monthly income ought to be taken as Rs. 13,000/- per month instead of Rs. 7,800/-. Alternatively, if Nitin Khandelwal's statement is not accepted, then considering the number of claimants, including two minor children, the deceased should be categorised as at least 'semi-skilled,' and appropriate compensation should be awarded.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/insurance company supported the impugned award and submitted that the tribunal has rightly denied reliance on the salary certificate, Ex. P-22.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
5. In the case at hand, the learned Tribunal has indeed taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,800/-. In the present case, a salary certificate, Exhibit P-22, has been submitted, and Nitin Khandelwal (AW-3) was examined on behalf of the appellants/claimants. AW-3 testified to issue salary certificate (Ex.P-22), stating that he is the Managing Partner of 'Deepak Tractor & Agriculture', where the deceased worked as a salesman, and that the deceased received an annual income of 96,000/- plus a commission of 60,000/-, ₹ ₹
but apart from salary certificate Ex.P-22, no documentary evidence has been produced to establish that Nitin Khandelwal (AW-3) is the Managing Partner of 'Deepak Tractor & Agriculture' or that the deceased was employed there; no registration certificate, appointment letter, attendance register, or record of monthly salary payments has been submitted.
6. Thus, considering the overall material available on record, it appears appropriate to assess the deceased's monthly income based on the minimum wage for 'semi-skilled' labour, which was Rs.9,250/- on the date of the accident (05.01.2020). Hence, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 9,250/- and to that extent, the impugned award needs to be modified.
7. 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
(2009) 6 SCC 121
below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court
Income Rs. 7,800 x 12 = 93,600/- Rs. 9,250 x 12 = 1,11,000/-
2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 37,440) = 1,31,040/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 44,400) = 1,55,400/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs. 32,760) = 98,280/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs. 38,850) = 1,16,550/-
4. Multiplier
(x) 16 = 15,72,480/-
(x) 16 = 18,64,800/-
Other conventional heads Rs. 2,53,000/- [16,500+16,500+2,2 0,000] Rs. 2,53,000/- [16,500+16,500+(44,00 0x5)] Total Rs. 18,25,480/- Rs. 21,17,800/-
8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.18,25,480/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.21,17,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.18,25,480/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,92,320/-. 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.
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 H.L. Sahu