Sapna Mandal Vs Govind @ Govinda

¶1

1

2025:CGHC:61283

ASHOK SAHU

NAFR

Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.12.17 10:27:12 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 420 of 2022

¶8

1 - Sapna Mandal, W/o. Late Mukand Mandal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o. Bhagwanpara, Indrapuri, P.V. 123, Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. Currently Residing At Village Bhond, Post Lamker, P.S. Bastar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Ku. Rinky Mandal, D/o. Late Mukand Mandal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o. Bhagwanpara, Indrapuri, P.V. 123, Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. Currently Residing At Village Bhond, Post Lamker, P.S. Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Manoj Mandal, S/o. Late Mukand Mandal, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Bhagwanpara, Indrapuri, P.V. 123, Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. Currently Residing At Village Bhond, Post Lamker, P.S. Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Amit Mandal, S/o. Late Mukand Mandal, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Sapna Mandal, Appellant No. 1 (Mother), R/o Bhagwanpara, Indrapuri, P.V. 123, Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. Currently Residing At Village Bhond, Post Lamker, P.S. Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

... Appellants

2

versus

1 - Govind @ Govinda, S/o. Kamu @ Kamuram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Mata Mandir Para, Village Bhanpuri, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Baster Chhattisgarh. (Driver)

¶16

2 - Rajendra Prasad Kashyap, S/o. Laxminath Kashyap, R/o. Mata Mandir Para, Village Bhanpuri, P.S. Bhanpuri District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Owner)

¶17

3 - The United Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Officer Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Appellant	:	Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	:	Mr. P. Dutta, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
		Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate

¶20

(Single Bench)

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶22

Judgment on Board

¶23

16.12.2025

¶24

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 15.12.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur in Claim Case No.15/2021, by which the

¶25

3

¶26

claim application of the claimants has been allowed and an amount of Rs. 14,60,400/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of Mukund Mandal, aged about 42 years, at the time of accident.

¶27

2. Appellants, who are wife, daughter & two sons of deceased Mukund Mandal filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,15,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased Mukund Mangal, aged about 42 years was a sole bread earner of the family and on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties.

¶28

3. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Mukund Mandal died in the accident arising out of rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by the respondent No.1, owned by the respondent No.2 and insured by the respondent No.3. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved and after calculating the amount of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,60,400/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application.

¶29

4

¶30

4. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount, as the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased as Rs.8,320/- per month, which should be Rs. 8,710/- per month, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. T herefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably.

¶31

5. Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the insurance company/ respondent No.3 would submit that the appellants have failed to prove the exact income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the learned Claims Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference.

¶32

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely.

¶33

7. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Mukund Mandal to be Rs.8,320/- per month, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner,

¶34

5

¶35

Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.8,710/- per month, which comes to Rs. 1,04,520/- per annum.

¶36

8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors 2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:-

¶37

Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
Income as per minimum wages	Rs. 8,320 x 12 = Rs. 99,840/-	Rs. 8,710 x 12 = Rs. 1,04,520/-
Add future prospects @ 25%	Rs. 99,840 + Rs. 24,960 = Rs. 1,24,800/-	Rs. 1,04,520 + Rs. 26,130 = Rs. 1,30,650/-
Deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses	Rs. 1,24,800 – 31,200 = Rs. 93,600/-	Rs. 1,30,650 – 32,662 = Rs. 97,988/-
Multiplier of 14	Rs. 93,600 x 14 = Rs. 13,10,400/-	Rs. 97,988 x 14 = Rs. 13,71,832/-
Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of consortium for children	Rs. 20,000 x 4 = Rs. 80,000/-	Rs. 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000/-
Loss of consortium for wife	Rs. 40,000/-	Rs. 40,000/-
Total	Rs. 14,60,400/-	Rs. 15,61,832/-

¶38

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶39

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶40

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶41

6

¶42

9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 14,60,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,61,825/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 14,60,400/- , the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,01,425/- . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% 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.

¶43

10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶44

Ashok

Sapna Mandal v. Govind @ Govinda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapna Mandal v. Govind @ Govinda

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

Saraswati Juresiya Vs Devanand Choudari

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

Karam Sai Paikra Vs Kalawati

Smt. Annapurna Goswami Vs Mukesh Kumar Yadu

Smt. Sukmat Bai Vs Bhagvendra Singh Kshatriya

Smt. Sukmat Bai Vs Bhagvendra Singh Kshatriya