Smt. Priti Singh Vs Chintaram Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:27945

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 721 of 2019

¶6

1 - Smt. Priti Singh Wd/o Late Tejendra Singh Thakur (Rajput) Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Maoud, Post Maroud Tashil Kurud District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Jai Prakash Singh Thakur (Rajput) S/o Late Chandrika Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Maoud, Post Maroud Tashil Kurud District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Smt. Saraswati Singh W/o Jaiprakash Singh Thakur (Rajput) Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Maoud, Post Maroud Tashil Kurud District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶9

--- Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Chintaram Sahu S/o Mehataruram Aged About 43 Years R/o Koliyari, Post Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.(Driver Of Vehicle Tata Pickup Bearing No. C.G. 04-Ld-1047), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶12

BALRAMPRASAD Digitallysigned byBALRAM DEWANGAN PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶13

2 - Lokeshwar Sahu S/o Jodhanram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mura, Post Darba, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.(Insurer Of Vehicle Tata Pickup Bearing No. C.G. 04-Ld-1047), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - Branch Manager Chola, Mandalam M.S. Genral Insurance Comapany, Through House No. 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, Behind Lic Bhawan, Pandri,

¶15

2

¶16

Post Pandri, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Tata Pickup Bearing No. C.G. 04-Ld-1047), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Respondents

¶18

For Appellants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advodate For Respondent No 3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶20

Order On Board

¶21

26/06/2025

¶22

Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 07.09.2018 passed in Claim Case No.98/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.25,94,601/- as compensation in a death case.

¶23

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s.166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the appellants seeking compensation of Rs.24,48,200/- against the death of Tejender Singh Thakur, who died in the road accident pleading therein that on 24.02.2017, Ankit Giri Goswami was travelling in a new sold scooty along with his friend Tejender Singh Thakur and returning back from Rajim Mela to village Maroud. When they reached near turning of village Dongitarai, vehicle Tata Pickup bearing No.C.G.-04-LD-1047 dashed the scooty driven by Ankit Giri Goswami, in which, both the riders suffered grievous injuries. Tejender Singh Thakur died on account of the head injury suffered by him. Incident was reported to

¶24

3

¶25

the concerned police station based upon which aforementioned crime was registered.

¶26

The Insurance Company along with owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the pleading of appellants/claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and after recording the evidence of the respective parties, passed the impugned award.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation in a fatal accident case. The learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding sufficient amount of compensation on other conventional head. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount under other conventional heads as held by the National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and prays for enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that the award of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference.

¶29

4

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

In this appeal, appellants have raised sole ground that Tribunal awarded meager sum of compensation under other conventional heads. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has quantified the amount of compensation to be awarded under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. The learned Claims Tribunal has though awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, however, awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate which is required to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. In case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. The appellant No.1 is widow, appellant No.2 and 3 are parents of the deceased therefore, the appellant No.1 is entitled for spousal consortium and appellants No.2 and 3 are entitled for filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. The amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal towards loss of dependency of Rs.25,29,601/- is not disputed by the parties, therefore, it is affirmed.

¶32

For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as under :-

¶33

5

¶34

SN	Head		Amount(in Rs.).
1.	For loss of dependency	:	25,29,601.00
2.	For loss of consortium to the appellants (spousal and filial)	:	1,20,000.00
	Rs.40,000 x 3
3.	For funeral expenses	:	15,000.00
4.	For loss of estate	:	15,000.00
	Grand Total	:	26,79,601.00

¶35

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.26,79,601.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶36

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶37

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶38

Balram

Smt. Priti Singh v. Chintaram Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Priti Singh v. Chintaram Sahu

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

Samunbai Uraonv Vs Surendra Kumar Patel

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Smt. Minal Singh

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Ritesh Singh

Branch Manager Vs Smt. Preeti Singh

Jovakim Tirkey Vs Dr. Laxmi Narayan Patel

Akhilendra Pratap Singh Vs Monu Chouhan