Partly allowed

Mathura Bai Sahu v. Sudhir Sultaniya

Chhattisgarh HC1 Sept 2025MAC/283/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the motor accident compensation awarded to the claimants of a deceased tractor driver. The Court recomputed the loss of dependency and added spousal, parental, and filial consortium, directing the insurance company to pay the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 8,07,556/- to Rs. 11,41,200/-; the insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount.

Mathura Bai Sahu Vs Sudhir Sultaniya — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI

¶5

Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.09 17:38:44 +0530

¶6

MAC No. 283 of 2019

¶7

1 - Mathura Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Terash Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Hasuwa, Police Station- Gidhouri, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Prahalad Sahu S/o Late Terash Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Hasuwa, Police StationGidhouri, DistrictBaloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Savitri Bai D/o Late Terash Sahu Aged About 28 Years W/o Sanjay Sahu, R/o VillageHasuwa, Police Station- Gidhori, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Presently Address- Pithampur, Police Station- Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4 - Pushpa D/o Late Terash Sahu Aged About 26 Years W/o Laxmi Narayan Sahu, R/o Village- Hasuwa, Police Station- Gidhori, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- R/o Village- Khursula, Police Station- Bilaigarh, District- Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5 - Hemlata D/o Late Teresh Sahu Aged About 24 Years W/o Santosh Sahu, R/o VillageHasuwa, Police Station- Gidhori, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Village- Tundra, Police Station- Gidhouri, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

6 - Prayag Prasad Sahu S/o Late Teresh Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Hasuwa, Police Station- Gidhori, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

7 - Banshilal Sahu (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 02-09-2025

¶14

... Appellants

¶15

versus

¶16

1 - Sudhir Sultaniya S/o Shri Gopal Prasad Sultaniya Aged About 33 Years R/o Sheoriarayan, Police Station And Tahsil- Sheorinarayan, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh..............Driver Of Offending Vehicle Car Bmw No. C.G. 04-Ku- 5151

¶17

2 - Prince Davar S/o Girdhar Singh Davar R/o Block No. 11, Flate- 204, Ashoka Ratna, Shankar Nagar Raipur, , District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh........... Owner Of Offending Vehicle Car Bmw No. C.G. 04-Ku5151

¶18

3 - Insurance Company The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Madina Building Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.........Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Car Bmw No. C.G. 04- Ku- 5151

¶19

... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. S. P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiya, Advocate

¶20

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

02.09.2025

¶24

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) (for short ‘learned Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 43/2018.

¶25

1. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 08,07,556/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/ Teras Ram Sahu in an accident that took place on 02.03.2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (BMW Car) bearing Registration No. CG-04-KU-5151 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.4/Insurance company. As a result of the said accident, the deceased died.

¶26

1. As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Teras Ram Sahu was aged about 50 years and was working as a Tractor driver and earning a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased.

¶27

1. The respondent No. 1 & 2 filed their written statement and denied the averment of the facts. Respondent No.3/Insurance company in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

¶28

1. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 5 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation.

¶29

¶30

1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation awarded is on the lower side. While assessing the age of the deceased as 51 years and his monthly income as Rs. 7,000/-, the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the compensation. It is contended that the income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed, and the compensation awarded under various heads is also inadequate. Therefore, it is prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced.

¶31

1. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and contends that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶32

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

¶33

1. The learned Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding with respect to the age of the deceased, holding him to be 51 years at the time of death, which appears to be based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The said finding is accordingly affirmed.

¶34

1. However, taking into consideration the evidence available on record, the minimum wages, and the number of dependents, this Court is inclined to assess the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/-.

¶35

1. Though the married daughter and major sons were not dependent upon the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded parental consortium to them.

¶36

¶37

1. As the learned Tribunal has not found appellant No. 2, 4 & 5 to be dependent upon the income of the deceased, it has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, which appears to be correct and is therefore maintained.

¶38

1. In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018)

¶39

18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:-

¶40

S.N	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	MonthlyIncome ofthe deceased	9,000/-
2.	FutureProspect10%	9,000X10%=900/-
3.	NetIncome	9,000+900=9,900/-
4.	Yearlyincome	9,900X12=1,18,800/-
5.	Personal expenditure 1/3	1,18,800/3= 39,600/-
6.	Yearlydependency	1,18,800-39,600=79,200/-
7.	Multiplier of 11 applied to assess yearly loss of dependency	79,200 X11= 8,71,200/-
8.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
9.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
10.	Spousal, Parental and Filial	2,40,000/- (40,000/- each to A-1, A-3
	consortium	to A-6 and deceased A-7)
	Total compensation	Rs. 11,41,200/-

¶41

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.8,07,556/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 11,41,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 8,07,556/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,33,664/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 21.01.2019. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶42

¶43

The respondent No. 3 insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days. On such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal shall pass an appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of enhanced amount to appellants/claimants.

¶44

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶47

H.Ansari

Mathura Bai Sahu v. Sudhir Sultaniya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathura Bai Sahu v. Sudhir Sultaniya

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. Godawari Vs Mahadeo Naik

Asharam Vs Maneshwar Sinha

Smt. Rajeshvari Patel Vs Bhushan Prasad Sahu

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Leela Dhiwar

Ram Avtar Verma Vs Bank Of India

Vijay Kumar Tiwari (Died and deleted) Through Lr Vs State of Chhattisgarh