Partly allowed

Smt. Nootan Chouhan v. Arshad Ali Khan

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2025MAC/1719/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for death of a clerk aged 45 in a road accident. The High Court added future prospects of 30%, recalculated dependency with multiplier 13, enhanced consortium, loss of estate and funeral heads per Supreme Court precedent, enhancing total award.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.6,06,072/- over the Tribunal's award, carrying interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement till realization.

Smt. Nootan Chouhan Vs Arshad Ali Khan — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:31757

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1719 of 2017

¶7

1 - Smt. Nootan Chouhan Wd/o Late Sailesh Chouhan, Aged About 38 Years R/o Block No.10 Plot No.9 Nehru Nagar East Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Shivani Chouhan D/o Late Sailesh Chouhan, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Nootan Chouhan W/o Sailesh Chouhan, R/o Block No.10 Plot No.9 Nehru Nagar East Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Vijyendra Chouhan S/o Sailesh Chouhan, Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Nootan Chouhan W/o Sailesh Chouhan, R/o Block No.10 Plot No.9 Nehru Nagar East Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Arshad Ali Khan S/o Late Mushafir Khan, Aged About 36 Years R/o Bhathapara Sati District Deoriya U.P. Present R/o Purani Basti Mangal Bazaar Supela Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. C.G.07 M A 4990, Chhattisgarh. 2 - K.K.Shrivastava S/o Late Shri D.C.Shrivastava, R/o A/66, Soorya Residency, Junwani Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner Of Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. C.G.07 M A 4990, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

3 - Royal Sundarum Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Raj Chambers Office No. 306 Third Floor, Near Mova Over Bridge Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer Of Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. C.G.07 M A 4990, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of
		Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)	:	None.
No. 1 & 2
For Respondent No. 3	:	Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate.

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

09/07/2025

¶20

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 29.08.2017 passed

¶21

¶22

by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, DistrictDurg (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 14/2014 (“Smt. Nootan Chouhan & Ors. Vs. Arshad Ali Khan & Ors.”) whereby an amount of Rs. 17,84,629/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss.

¶23

Brief facts of the case, is that on on 24.06.2014, deceased Sailesh Chouhan was going to his office on his motorcycle bearing registration No. MP24/2424 and near Nehru Nagar Square, he was hit by the offending car bearing registration No. CG-07-MA/4990, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1. As a result, Sailesh Chouhan sustained grievous injuries in his head, mouth, ear, chest, and other parts of the body, and later on died during treatment at Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital. At the time of his death, Sailesh Chouhan was working as a Clerk in the Education Department and was earning Rs. 17,238/- per month and was aged about 45 years. The learned Claims Tribunal, after hearing all parties, assessed his annual income as Rs. 1,92,720/-, deducted onethird towards personal expenses, and applying the multiplier of 13, calculated the dependency at Rs. 16,70,240/-. Additionally, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards for loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- towards for consortium, Rs. 25,000/- towards for love

¶24

¶25

and affection to appellant Nos. 2 and 3, Rs. 25,000/- towards for funeral expenses, Rs. 29,389/- towards for treatment and Rs. 10,000/- towards for attendant and traveling, thereby awarding a total compensation of Rs. 17,84,629/- with 6% annual interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.. Therefore, the appellants/claimants of the deceased preferred an application claiming a total compensation of Rs.51,66,552/-.

¶26

After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 16,060/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,92,720/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 64,240/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 1,28,480/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 45 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, daughter and son of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 16,70,240/-. Further Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 29,389/- towards medical treatment and Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant and traveling has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 17,84,629/- in favour of the wife, daughter and son of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for

¶27

¶28

enhancement.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,84,629/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably.

¶30

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

¶31

None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶34

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of

¶35

¶36

awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶37

As regards the income of the deceased, the learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 16,060/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 16,060/- per month which appears to be proper on accident dated i.e. 24.06.2014. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 16,060/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,92,720/per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 30% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 57,816/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,50,536/-.

¶38

11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 45 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, daughter and son of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 83,512/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,67,024/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.

¶39

¶40

Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 21,71,312/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu , reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189 , the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X3+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. Further Rs. 29,389/- towards medical treatment and Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant and traveling has also been awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, daughter and son of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 23,90,701/- in the following

¶41

manner:-

¶42

S.No.		Heads	Calculation
01.	Towards loss	of dependency	Rs. 21,71,312/-
02.	Towards cons	ortium along with	Rs. 1,44,000/-
	with increase	of 10% in every
	three years +10%).	(40,000X3+10%
03.	Towards loss with increase threeyears.	of estate along of 10% in every	Rs. 18,000/-

¶43

¶44

04.	Towards Funeral Expenses	Rs. 18,000/-
	along with increase of 10% in everythreeyears.
05.	Towards Medical Treatment	Rs. 29,389/-
06.	Towards Attendant and Traveling	Rs. 10,000/-
	Total	Rs. 23,90,701/-

¶45

Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 23,90,701/-. After deducting Rs. 17,84,629/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 6,06,072/-.

¶46

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, daughter and son of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 6,06,072/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶47

SD/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶48

Judge

¶49

Raghu Jat

Smt. Nootan Chouhan v. Arshad Ali Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nootan Chouhan v. Arshad Ali Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sarita Panigrahi Vs Smt. Rukani

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Gujeshwari

Minor Barun Nayak Vs Manoranjan Pradhan

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs Jagdish @ Bhurva

Ram Ratan Banjare Vs Jainuram Sori

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Bihari Soni