High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 10 CHH CK 1895

Arjundas Manikpuri & Ors. vs Aftab Qureshi & Ors.

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur · Decided on 12 October 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
MAC No. 589 of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 752 words
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 19.10.2022, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.131/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.12,07,256/- as compensation for the death of Late Sushila Manikpuri, who died in a road accident which took place on 05.12.2021.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed error of law in assessing the monthly income of the deceased. The deceased at the relevant time was working as labour and earning Rs.400/- per day and Rs.12,000/-per month, however, the learned Tribunal only assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,800/- in view of Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour, which is not justified. Therefore, the impugned award needs to be enhanced suitably.

3.

None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company opposing the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, has rightly passed the impugned award and has rightly awarded amount under the conventional heads, which need no interference by this Court.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.3, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6.

In the present case, the appellants/claimants pleaded before the Claims Tribunal that the deceased Sushila Manikpuri was labour and earning Rs.400/- per day and Rs.12,000/- per month. However, no cogent and reliable evidence was adduced to substantiate this claim. The learned Tribunal has indeed taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,800/-. Considering the deceased as unskilled labourer at the time of accident i.e. 05.12.2021, it would proper to take his monthly income of Rs.9,280/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour. Therefore, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified.

7.

The learned claims Tribunal, considering the nature of job of deceased (self employed) at the time of accident 05.12.2021, the fact that she was married aged 50 years, and number of dependents (03), has rightly taken future prospect of 25%, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 13 respectively, along with Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,32,000/- (44,000x3) towards parental consortium and Rs.28,256/- towards medical expenses, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and proper and calls for no interference.

8.

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.HeadsCompensation awarded by the TribunalCompensation awarded by this Court
1IncomeRs. 7800x12 = Rs.93,600/-Rs. 9280x12 = Rs.1,11,360/-
2.Future prospect(+)25% (i.e. Rs. 23,400) = Rs.1,17,000/-(+)25% (i.e. Rs. 27,840) =Rs.1,39,200/-
3.Deduction(-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.39,000 ) = Rs.78,000/-(-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.46,400) = Rs.92,800/-
4.Multiplier(x) 13 = Rs.10,14,000/-(x) 13 = Rs.12,06,400/-
5Towards Loss of consortium to all 03 claimants(Rs.44,000 x 3) Rs.1,32,000/-Rs. 44,000 x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/-
6.Towards Loss of EstateRs.16,500/-Rs.16,500/-
7.Towards funeral expensesRs.16,500/-Rs.16,500/-
9.Towards Medical ExpensesRs.28,256/-Rs.28,256/-
TotalRs. 12,07,256/-Rs.13,99,656/-
9.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.12,07,256/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.13,99,656/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.12,07,256/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,92,400/-. 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.

10.

In the result, The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

11.

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.

Footnotes

  1. 1.(2017) 16 SCC 680
  2. 2.(2009) 6 SCC 121
  3. 3.(2018) 18 SCC 130