Smt. Basanti Singh Vs Ramsingh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed byRAVI RAVISHANKAR SHANKARMANDAVI MANDAVI Date: 2025.09.09 11:57:55 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:41723

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 753 of 2019

¶7

1 - Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Ambikapur Address- In The House Of Kartaram Gupta Near Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, New Through Assistant Manager (Legal) Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company, 2nd Floor Simaran Tower, In Front Of Lic Building, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.....................(Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Smt. Basanti Singh W/o Late Sevaram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Batra, Police Chowki- Karanji, P.S.- Vishrampur, TehsilBhaiythan District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Urmila Singh D/o Late Sevaram Aged About 20 Years R/o VillageBatra, Police Chowki- Karanji, P.S.- Vishrampur, Tehsil- Bhaiythan District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Janki Singh D/o Late Sevaram Aged About 13 Years Minor They Are Through Their Mother Smt. Basanti Bai, R/o Village- Batra, Police Chowki- Karanji, P.S.- Vishrampur, Tehsil- Bhaiythan District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Jugeshwari Singh D/o Late Sevaram Aged About 11 Years Minor They Are Through Their Mother Smt. Basanti Bai, R/o Village- Batra,

¶14

2

¶15

Police Chowki- Karanji, P.S.- Vishrampur, Tehsil- Bhaiythan DistrictSarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶16

5 - Tuleshwari Singh S/o Sevaram Aged About 10 Years Minor They Are Through Their Mother Smt. Basanti Bai, R/o Village- Batra, Police Chowki- Karanji, P.S.- Vishrampur, Tehsil- Bhaiythan District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶17

6 - Santosh Singh S/o Late Sevaram Aged About 4 Years Minor They Are Through Their Mother Smt. Basanti Bai, R/o Village- Batra, Police Chowki- Karanji, P.S.- Vishrampur, Tehsil- Bhaiythan District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶18

7 - Manmet W/o Mansai Aged About 68 Years R/o Village- Batra, Police Chowki- Karanji, P.S.- Vishrampur, Tehsil- Bhaiythan District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh..............(Claimant), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶19

8 - Ramsingh S/o Shivcharan Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o VillageKahrsura, Police Chowki- Karanji, P.S.- Vishrampur, Tehsil- Bhaiyathan District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.................(Driver), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶20

9 - Mohd. Murtaja S/o Late Abdul Ajij Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Mahganwa P.S. District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh..............(Owner), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

---Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Ms. Shristhi Upadhyay, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 7 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate

¶22

MAC No. 463 of 2019

¶23

1 - Smt. Basanti Singh Wd/o Late Sewaram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Batra, Outpost Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil

¶24

3

¶25

Bhaiyathan, Disrtict- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶26

2 - Urmila Singh D/o Sewaram Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Batra, Outpost Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, DisrtictSurajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶27

3 - Janki Singh D/o Late Sewaram Aged About 13 Years R/o Village Batra, Outpost Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, Disrtict- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶28

4 - Jugeshwari Singh D/o Late Sewaram Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother, R/o Village Batra, Outpost Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, Disrtict- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶29

5 - Tuleshwari Singh D/o Late Sewaram Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother, R/o Village Batra, Outpost Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, Disrtict- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶30

6 - Santosh Singh S/o Late Sewaram Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother, R/o Village Batra, Outpost Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, Disrtict- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶31

7 - Manmet Wd/o Late Mansay Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Batra, Outpost Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, DisrtictSurajpur, Chhattisgarh............(Claimants), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶32

--- Appellant(s)

¶33

Versus

¶34

1 - Ramsingh S/o Shivcharan Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kharsura, Outpost Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, Disrtict- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh............(Driver Of Offending Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.-15-3173), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶35

2 - Mohd Murtaja S/o Late Abdul Aziz Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Mahgawa, Police Station And District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh............

¶36

4

¶37

(Owner Of Offending Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.-15-7173), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶38

3 - Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited Chennai, Contact No. Toll Free Helpine 18002005544, S.M.S. Chola Care No. 18001035354, Through Branch Manager, Branch Ambikapur, AddressNearby Ambedkar Chowk, In The House Of Kartaram Gupta, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh...............(Insurer Of Offending Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 15-3173).............(NonApplicants), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶39

--- Respondent(s)

¶40

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶41

For Appellants	: Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2	: Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Ms. Shristhi Upadhyay, Advocate

¶42

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶43

Order on Board

¶44

19/08/2025

¶45

1. As both these appeals arise out of the award dated 20.09.2018 they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶46

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that when Sevaram, an employee of South Eastern Coalfield Limited was going on a motorcycle bearing number CG 15 ZJ 0595 along with Subelal Rajwade, one truck bearing number CG 15 AC 3173, driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1, dashed the motorcycle and caused accident. In said accident, Sevaram suffered grievous injuries and later on scummed to those injuries.

¶47

5

¶48

3. The claimants who are widow, children and mother of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation of Rs.85,72,352/- against the death of their breadwinner late Sewaram.

¶49

4. Non-applicants No.1 & 2, who are Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle, submitted reply and denied the facts pleaded in claim application. They have denied that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by non-applicant No.1.

¶50

5. Non-applicant No.3 has submitted its separate reply pleading therein that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle. Non-applicant No.1-Driver of the offending truck was not possessing valid and effective driving license. There was no valid permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle, which is breach of policy condition and therefore, the insurance company is not having any liability to indemnity the insured, if any compensation is awarded.

¶51

6. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties recorded a finding that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck driven by the non-applicant No.1, breach of policy conditions were not found proved, allowed the claim application in part. Awarded total sum of Rs.56,86,000/- as compensation and fastened liability upon the non-applicants No.1

¶52

6

¶53

to 3 jointly and severally. It is also ordered that the non-applicant No.3, being insurance company is having the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation.

¶54

7. Learned counsel for appellant in MAC No.753 of 2019 (Insurance Company) would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased including the Sunday wages and Overtime wages as mentioned in the Salary Slip Ex.A/15. She submits that Sunday wages and Overtime wages are not the regular wages paid to any employee and therefore, it cannot be considered to be the part of salary. She next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal have not deducted all the deductions as mentioned in the salary slip and assessed the income which is erroneous.

¶55

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 7/claimants in MAC No.753 of 2019 would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for appellant and submit that the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in view of the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal in paras 23 and 24 is not correct. Learned Claims Tribunal deducted the income of the deceased for Sunday wages and Overtime wages and thereafter taking into consideration other income, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per month. He also pointed out that the amount of Rs.30,000/- per month as computed by the learned Claims Tribunal is after deduction of the Income Tax also.

¶56

7

¶57

9. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC No. 463 of 2019 filed by the claimants would submit that the claimants have also filed an appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the claimants. Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium which may be for the claimant No.1/widow of the deceased. Claimants No.2 to 6 are children and claimant No.7 is widowed mother.

¶58

10. Award under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ has been quantified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further types of consortium is explained in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 and it is held that husband/spouse will be entitled for loss of ‘spousal consortium’, children will be entitled for loss of ‘parental consortium’ and parents will be entitled for loss of ‘filial consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- each. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/only toappellant/claimant No.1 towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’. In the case at hand, claimants No.2 to 6 are children and claimants No.7 is widowed mother of deceased- Sewaram, therefore, they are also entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of parental consortium’ and ‘loss of filial consortium’ respectively.

¶59

8

¶60

11. Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 in MAC No.463 of 2019 would support the award and submit that the compensation awarded to the claimants are just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶61

12. Ms. Shristhi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company would submit that the insurance company has already filed an appeal bearing MAC No.753 of 2019 and challenging quantum of the compensation.

¶62

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim cases.

¶63

14. So far as the appeal filed by Insurance Company bearing MAC No.753 of 2019 is concerned, counsel for the appellant has challenged the award only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is on higher side. For the said ground learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal computed income of the deceased by adding Sunday wages and Overtime wages, which is not correct.

¶64

15. Perusal of paras 23 and 24 of the impugned award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal after assessing the income deducted Sunday wages and Overtime wages of Rs.2729.23 and Rs.3070.38 from the salary, as mentioned in salary slip Ex. A/15. The learned Claims Tribunal has further considered quarterly bonus of Rs.3791/-, computed to be monthly bonus of Rs.1264/-,

¶65

9

¶66

deducted income tax and thereafter computed monthly income as Rs.30,000/-.

¶67

16. In view of the aforementioned discussion made by learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award computed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per month instead of Rs.37371.56 as mentioned in the salary slip Ex. A/15, in the opinion of this Court, submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased on higher side is not sustainable. According it is repelled. As no other ground is raised before this Court by appellant Insurance Company, appeal bearing MAC No. 753/2019 being sans merit, is dismissed.

¶68

17. Now, I will consider the ground raised by appellant/claimant in MAC No.463 of 2019.

¶69

18. The counsel for appellants/claimants made submission that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of consortium to all the claimants. Award of compensation under head of loss of consortium was settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Shetty (supra) and further it has been crystallized and clarified that the consortium is of three types. “Loss of spousal consortium”, “loss of parental consortium” and “loss of filial consortium” to spouse, children and parents respectively of Rs.40,000/- each. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation on other heads as Rs.15,000/- towards “loss of

¶70

10

¶71

estate”, Rs.15,000/- towards “funeral expenses” and Rs.40,000/towards “loss of consortium to spouse” which appears to be for the claimant No.1.

¶72

19. In view of the above discussions and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram (supra), the claimants No.2 to 6 children are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards “loss of parental consortium” and claimant No.7 is entitled for Rs.40,000/towards “loss of filial consortium”. It is ordered accordingly.

¶73

20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% in every three years and, therefore, I find it appropriate to increase the compensation under other conventional heads like “loss of estate”, “funeral expenses” and “loss of spousal consortium”, “loss of parental consortium” and “loss of filial consortium” therefore, the compensation under head “loss of estate” would be Rs.15,000/- plus 15,000 x 10%=16,500/-, “funeral expenses” also would be Rs.15,000/- plus 15,000 x 10%=16,500/-, and “loss of consortium” to claimants No.1 to 7, Rs. 40,000/- plus 40,000 x 10% = 44,000 x 7 = 3,08,000/- respectively.

¶74

21. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:-

¶75

S. N.	Heads		Compensation
1.	(A) Loss	of	: Rs. 56,16,000/-
	Income/dependency

¶76

11

¶77

	30,000 x 12 =3,60,000/- (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 30% (3,60,000x 30% =1,08,000) 3,60,000+1,08,000 =4,68,000/- (C)Deduction of 1/5 towards personal and living expenses (4,68,000 x1/5 = 93,600) 4,68,000 -93,600 =3,74,400/- (D)Multiplier of 15 3,74,400 x 15= 56,16,000/-
2.	Funeral Expenses (15000 x 10 %=16500)	: (+) Rs. 16,500
3.	Loss of Estate (15000 x 10 %=16500)	: (+) Rs. 16,500
4.	Spousal Consortium to claimant/appellant No.1 (wife) (40,000 x 10 % =44,000)	: (+) Rs. 44,000
5.	Loss of parental consortium to claimants/appellants No. 2 & 6 (children) of 44,000/- each (40,000 x 10 % =44,000) (44,000 x 5=2,20,000)	(+) Rs. 2,20,000
6.	Loss of filial consortium to claimants/appellants No. 7 (widowed mother) of 44,000/- (40,000 x 10 %=44,000)	(+) Rs. 44,000
	Total compensation	Rs. 59,57,000/-

¶78

22. Now the claimants/appellants will be entitled for total compensation for Rs. 59,57,000/- instead of Rs56,86,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶79

23. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

¶80

12

¶81

Any amount of compensation already paid to claimants pursuant to impugned award shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation which has now been computed and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶82

24. In the result MAC No.753/2019 filed by appellant Insurance Company is dismissed and MAC No.463/2019 filed by claimants is partly allowed. Impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶83

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶84

Ravi Mandavi

Smt. Basanti Singh v. Ramsingh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Basanti Singh v. Ramsingh

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

Manoj Vs Shanti Bai

Vistarni Kurre Vs Samundbai

Ayush Xess, Vs Santosh Kumar Yadav

Mahendra Kumar Sahu Vs Sanat Kumar Sahu

Reeta Patwa Vs Rehanu Raja @ Bhai Jaan

Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Vs Smt. Basanti Singh