Smt. Buchki Baghel Vs Jogaram Kodopi

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.11.18 10:54:48 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:55617

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 299 of 2024

¶6

1 - Smt. Buchki Baghel Wd/o Late Budhram Baghel, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Murtunda, Kankipara, Post Jirampal, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Ku. Kamla Baghel D/o Late Budhram Baghel, Aged About 18 Years(Now), R/o Village Murtunda, Kankipara, Post Jirampal District Sukma, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Mahesh Baghel S/o Late Budhram Baghel, Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Appellant No. 1 Smt. Buchki Baghel (Mother) R/o Village Murtunda, Kankipara, Post Jirampal District Sukma, Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Umesh Baghel S/o Late Budhram Baghel, Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Appellant No. 1 Smt. Buchki Baghel (Mother) R/o Village Murtunda, Kankipara, Post Jirampal District Sukma, Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Ku. Gayatri Baghel D/o Late Budhram Baghel, Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Appellant No. 1 Smt. Buchki Baghel (Mother) R/o Village Murtunda, Kankipara, Post Jirampal District Sukma, Chhattisgarh

¶11

6 - Ku. Saroj Baghel D/o Late Budhram Baghel, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Appellant No. 1 Smt. Buchki Baghel (Mother) R/o Village Murtunda, Kankipara, Post Jirampal District Sukma, Chhattisgarh

¶12

7 - Arjun Baghel S/o Late Budhram Baghel, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Appellant No. 1 Smt. Buchki Baghel (Mother) R/o Village Murtunda, Kankipara, Post Jirampal District Sukma, Chhattisgarh

¶13

8 - Arvind Baghel S/o Late Budhram Baghel, Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Appellant No. 1 Smt. Buchki Baghel (Mother) R/o Village Murtunda, Kankipara, Post Jirampal District Sukma, Chhattisgarh

¶14

9 - Smt. Aayti Wd/o Late Chinga Baghel, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Murtunda, Kankipara, Post Jirampal District Sukma, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Appellants/Claimants

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - Jogaram Kodopi S/o Bhima Kodopi Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sameli Patelpara, P.S. Kuakonda, Post Bhansi District Dantewada Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle )

¶18

2 - Umesh Sundam S/o Shri Hunga Sundam, Aged About 32 Years R/o Tarlaguda, Post Jagargunada Tahsil Konta, District Sukama, Chhattisgarh

¶19

3 - Tata AIG General Insurance Company, Limited, Through Branch Manger, Branch Office, Peninsula Business Park, Tower -A 15 Floor, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai 400013 (M.H.) (Insurer)

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

2

¶22

For Appellants/Claimants	: Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K Tulsyan, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 & 2/ Driver & Owner	: None appeared, though served
For Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company	: Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶23

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

¶24

14/11/2025

¶25

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 09/2021 dated 03.07.2023, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.12,77,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Budhram Baghel.

¶26

According to the facts narrated in claim application, on 28.08.2020 while deceased Budhram Baghel was going via Golaguda on cycle from his home to shop for purchase households items, from where he was returning, when he reached near Golaguda at about 08:00 pm, the offending vehicle- Hero Delux Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG18/N-1808 driven by respondent No.1, dashed the cycle of the deceased, resultantly, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. The deceased was working as farmer and labour and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶27

Mr.Vikas Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would argue that deceased- Budhram Baghel met with an accident on

¶28

3

¶29

28.08.2020 as the driver of the offending vehicle motorcycle Hero Delux bearing registration No. CG-18/N-1808 by driving it rash and negligent manner, dashed the cycle of the deceased, resultantly he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. He would contend that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 40 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a farmer and as a labour, but the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- per month which is at lower side, whereas as per minimum wages matrix, the wages admissible to unskilled labour in the month of August 2020 was Rs.8,860/-. He would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation for loss of consortium to claimant No. 1/wife at Rs.40,000/-; Rs.40,000/- to claimants No. 2 to 8/children and Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.9/mother of the deceased, in total Rs.1,20,000/-only, whereas the number of claimants are 09. He would fairly submit that the in other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶30

Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would oppose. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation, therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection.

¶32

Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month in absence of evidence, but the

¶33

4

¶34

learned Claims Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix to assess the notional monthly income of the deceased. The wages admissible to unskilled labour in the month of August 2020 was Rs.8,860/- and this figure should have taken into consideration while assessing notional monthly income of the deceased. Further the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants who are wife, mother, minor sons and minor daughters of the deceased. It is further noticed that the learned Tribunal has only awarded Rs.1,20,000/- to claimants towards loss of consortium and it should have been Rs.44,000/- each, in total Rs.3,96,000/-, and thus, it requires reconsideration.

¶35

Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 ; Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. , reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors ., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:-

¶36

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income as per minimum wages	Rs.6,000/- per month	Rs.8,860/-
2.	Future prospect 25%	Rs.1,500 + Rs.6,000/- = Rs.7,500/-	Rs.2,215 + Rs.8,860 = Rs.11,075/-
3.	Deduction of 1/5th towards personal expenses	Rs.7,500 – 1,500= Rs.6,000/- per month	Rs.11,075 – 2,215 = Rs.8,860/- per month
4.	Per month Income of the deceased	Rs.6,000/-	Rs.8,860/-
5.	Annual Income of	Rs.6,000/- x 12 =	Rs.8,860 x 12 =

¶37

5

¶38

	the deceased	Rs.72,000/- per annum	Rs.1,06,320/- per annum
6.	Multiplier of 15	Rs.72,000/- x 15 = Rs.10,,80,000/-	Rs.1,06,320/- x 15 = Rs.15,94,800/-
7.	Loss of Estate; Loss of Consortium & Funeral Expenses	Rs.77,000/-	Rs.77,000/-
8.	Loss of spousal consortium claimant No. 1/wife	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.40,000/-
9.	Loss of Consortium to Claimants No. 2 to 8 (minor sons & minor daughter)	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.44,000/- x 06= Rs.2,64,000/- + Rs.40,000/-= Rs.3,04,000/-
10.	Loss of Consortium to Claimant No. 9/mother	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.40,000/-
	Total :	Rs.12,77,000/-	Rs.20,55,800/-

¶39

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.12,77,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.20,55,800/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.12,77,000/- , the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.7,78,800/- . The concerned respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶40

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.

¶41

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶42

vatti

Smt. Buchki Baghel v. Jogaram Kodopi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Buchki Baghel v. Jogaram Kodopi

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

Smt. P. Neelaveni Vs Saroj Verma

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Umesh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ravindra Kumar Rajwade

Mayavati Gaharvariya Vs Rajendra Kumar Dubey

Sundri Bai Pradhan Vs Anuret Dhnuhar Urf Anuresh Kumar

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Savita Bai Chouhan