Smt. Sukmat Bai Vs Bhagvendra Singh Kshatriya

¶1

Page No.1 of 4 IN MAC-352-2022 & MAC-411-2022

¶2

2025:CGHC:61277

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Digitally SAIFAN signed KHAN by SAIFAN KHAN

¶6

[Arising out of common award dt. dt. 21.12.2021, passed in Claim Case No.25/2020 (Smt. Sukhmat Bai and another vs. Bhagvendra Singh Kshatriya and others) by the 2^nd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (CG)]

¶7

MAC No. 352 of 2022

¶8

1 - Smt. Sukmat Bai W/o Late Pardeshi Birhor Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Gudrumuda Manjhipara, Thana Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Roshani Kumari D/o Late Pardeshi Birhor Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sukmat Bai W/o Late Pardeshi Birhor, R/o Village Gudrumuda Manjhipara, Thana Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

--- Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

1 - Bhagvendra Singh Kshatriya S/o Rajbhan Singh Baghel Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Keshaw Nagar, Thana Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Jai Mahamaya Petroleum Through Proprietor Shri Rajkumar Agrawal, Ring Road Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh...........Owner, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - The United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Bramha Road Near Kumkum Hotel, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh..............Insurer, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶15

--- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellants : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶16

Page No.2 of 4 IN MAC-352-2022 & MAC-411-2022

¶17

WITH

¶18

MAC No. 411 of 2022

¶19

United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Office, Brahma Road, Near Kumkum Hotel, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶20

... Appellant

¶21

Versus

¶22

1 - Smt. Sukhmatbai Wd/o Late Shri Pardeshi Birhor, Aged About 24 Years R/o Gudrumuda (Manjhipara) P.S. Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶23

2 - Roshni Kumari, D/o Late Shri Pardesi Birhor, Aged About 3 Years Since Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian And Mother, Smt. Sukhmatbai, Wd/o Late Shri Pardeshi Birhor, R/o Gudrumuda (Manjhipara) P.S. Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶24

3 - Bhagvendra Singh Kshatriya, S/o Rajbhan Singh Baghel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Keshav Nagar, P.S. Vishrampur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Jai Mahamaya Petroleum, Through Its Proprietor, Shri Rajkumar Agrawal, Ring Road, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]

¶27

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent 1-2 : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate

¶28

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board)

¶29

16.12.2025

¶30

Regard being had to the simlitute of the questions of facts and law invovled and being arising out of a common impugned award dt. 21.12.2021, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶31

Page No.3 of 4 IN MAC-352-2022 & MAC-411-2022

¶32

MAC-352-2022 has beebn filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. dt. 21.12.2021, passed in Claim Case No.25/2020 (Smt. Sukhmat Bai and another vs. Bhagvendra Singh Kshatriya and others) by the 2^nd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.5,27,000/- as compensation for the death of Ramesh Birhor, who was aged about 7 years on the date of accident. Whereas, MAC-411-2022 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the same award dt. 21.12.2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay the said amount of compensation to the claimant upon the Insurance Company.

¶33

Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case and, therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced suitably.

¶34

4 . On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that since the deceased was aged about 07 years on the date of accident, therefore, the amout of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the higher side and same deserves to be reduced.

¶35

Page No.4 of 4 IN MAC-352-2022 & MAC-411-2022

¶36

5 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶37

6 . The Supreme Court in the matter of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others 1 , for the death of child aged about 12 years, a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation has ben awarded alongwith 7% interest per annum.

¶38

7 . In that view of the matter, since in the present case also the deceased was aged about 07 years and learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.5,27,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased- Ramesh Birhor, who was son of claimant No.01, which in the considered opinion of this Court is correct assessment of the compensation amount in light of the decision of Meena Devi (supra) and same neither deserves to be enhanced nor deserves to be reduced. As such, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶39

8 . Accordingly, I do not find any merit in both the appeals. It deserve to be and are hereby dismissed .

¶40

s@if

¶41

1 AIR 2022 SC 5006 : (2023) 1 SCC 204

Smt. Sukmat Bai v. Bhagvendra Singh Kshatriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sukmat Bai v. Bhagvendra Singh Kshatriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswati Juresiya Vs Devanand Choudari

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Leeladevi Kathale

Karam Sai Paikra Vs Kalawati

Sapna Mandal Vs Govind @ Govinda

Smt. Annapurna Goswami Vs Mukesh Kumar Yadu

Smt. Sukmat Bai Vs Bhagvendra Singh Kshatriya