Falorance Toppo Vs Shri. Anil Kumar Sahu

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2025:CGHC:36542

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 186 of 2019

¶6

Falorance Toppo S/o Late Simon Aged About 42 Years Jashpuranchal English Medium School Badhirkona Village Jurgum Tahsil and District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Sijeel Toppo S/o Falorance Toppo Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Next Friend And Guardian Smt. Apolina Toppo R/o Village Pangur Bartoli, Tahsil Kunkuri Distict Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Shawarnalata Toppo S/o Florance Toppo Gond Aged About 39 Years Minor Through Their Next Friend And Guardian Smt. Apolina Toppo R/o Village Pangur Bartoli, Tahsil Kunkuri Distict Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Smt. Apolina Toppo W/o Falorance Toppo Aged About 39 Years Gond R/o Village Pangur Bartoli , Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

--- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants

¶11

versus

¶12

Shri. Anil Kumar Sahu S/o Chandra Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dumri Police Station Dumari District Gumla Jharkhand ( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle)

¶13

Shri Linush Tigga S/o Matiyash Tigga R/o Village Tetatroli, Police Station Jari, District Gumla Jharkhand ( Driver Of The Offending Vehicle)

¶14

National Insurance Company Ltd Divisonal Office Palkot Road Gumla Jharkhand Permanat Office, Priyadarshani Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer of the offending Vehicle )

¶15

--- Respondents/ Non-applicants

¶16

For Appellants : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rishu Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶18

Judgment On Board

¶19

28/07/2025

¶20

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶21

2 / 4

¶22

Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 27.09.2018 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 44/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 26,24,140/- as compensation in motor accidental death case.

¶23

The motor accident occurred on 21.05.2015 at about 07:00 p.m. near Mission School village Bhandri, by a bolero vehicle bearing number JH07 D 6759 by its driver non-applicant No. 2 while driving it rashly and negligently and death of Stephen Toppo (deceased) is not in dispute. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶24

For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the ground raised by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶25

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the claimants are satisfied with the amount of compensation towards dependency and other heads including the medical expenses, however, this appeal is filed on the ground that Claims Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation towards loss of consortium to any of the claimant. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram

¶26

and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 claimants are entitled for Rs. 40,000 each towards loss of consortium.

¶27

3 / 4

¶28

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that claimant No. 1 is brother and claimants No. 2 & 3 are children and claimant No. 4 is wife of claimant No. 1. Deceased was residing separately and claimants are residing separately having their own family and income, they were not dependents upon the deceased. He submits that in view of decision in case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra) claimants would not be entitled for compensation under loss of consortium. He submits that as the claimants are not dependents, insurance company has also preferred cross-appeal challenging the award of compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Learned counsel would submit that as the Respondent no. 3- Insurance company has also filed cross-objection, therefore, there is no chance of settlement between the parties and therefore case be heard on merits.

¶29

Heard on I.A. No. 3/2020, application for condonation of delay in filing crossobjection/appeal.

¶30

On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, I.A. No. 3/2020 is allowed and the delay of 330 days in filing cross-appeal is condoned.

¶31

With the consent of parties, case is heard finally.

¶32

So far as the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra) has explained types of consortium and held that there shall be loss of spousal consortium to wife/ husband, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents of deceased.

¶33

4 / 4

¶34

In view of the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra) , claimants being brother and his family, the ground raised by learned counsel for appellants-claimants is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled.

¶35

No other grounds for learned counsel for appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶36

For the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by appellants-claimants being sans merit is hereby dismissed .

¶37

So far the ground raised by learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 in crossobjection that the claimants were not dependent upon deceased is concerned, the documents available in appeal filed by Respondent No. 3 along with covering memo, the order-sheets of the proceedings before Claims Tribunal dated 05.01.2020 would show that in view of the settlement entered into between the parties, Insurance company has deposited the amount of compensation of Rs. 30,44,894 as long back on 05.01.2020. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any good ground to entertain the cross-objection filed by Respondent No. 3.

¶38

Accordingly, the cross-objection is without any substance, it is also dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶41

pwn

Falorance Toppo v. Shri. Anil Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Falorance Toppo v. Shri. Anil Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramsingh Kashyap Vs Dullu Ram Yadav

Bharat Lal Patel Vs Ramesh Sidar

Sheetal Kuamr Sahu Vs Amar Kumar Nand @ Lucky

Indrakumari Vs Chandrika Panika

Kripal Singh Vs Jagdish Prasad

Jeewanlal Rahi Vs Santoshi Sahu