Smt. Sushila Mandavi Vs Mohan Pradhani

Kunwar Diwan S/o Shri Baldev Diwan, Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 10 Patelpara Mudangaon Tahsil Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ( Owner )

¶14

Branch Manager, National Insurance Comapny Limited, Pratham Floor Shanti Chabi Tower, Sirasar Chowk Power House Road Near Allahabad Bank Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ( Insurer )

¶15

--- Respondents/ Non-applicants

¶16

For Appellants : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None appeared, though served. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶18

Judgment On Board

¶19

12/08/2025

¶20

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, application seeking condonation of delay of 154 days in filing this appeal.

¶21

Pleadings made in the application and the submission of learned counsel for appellants is opposed by learned counsel for Respondent No. 3.

¶22

2 / 5

¶23

On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, I.A. No. 01/2024 is allowed and delay of 154 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

¶24

Learned counsel for appellants submits that liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened jointly and severally upon non-applicants therein. Claims Tribunal further directed that non-applicant No. 3 being insurer is having first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation. As liability to satisfy the the amount of compensation is upon non-applicant No. 3 which is represented by learned counsel, therefore, this appeal be heard finally at motion stage.

¶25

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company does not dispute the submission of counsel for appellants with regard to liability upon Respondent No. 3 to satisfy the amount of compensation, and also having no objection if the appeal is heard finally at motion stage.

¶26

With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

¶27

Appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned award dated 25.04.2023 passed by Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, District South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 14/2022, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in part, awarded total sum of ₹ 17,77,800/- as compensation and fastened first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicant No. 3-insurance company.

¶28

This appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accident occurred on 03.11.2021 at about 11:30 a.m., involvement of vehicle motorcycle bearing number CG17-KM-7525 (hereinafter referred to as “offending

¶29

3 / 5

¶30

motorcycle”) owned by non-applicant No. 2, driven by non-applicant No. 1, non-applicant No. 3 being insurer, death of Mukesh Mandavi (deceased) due to motor accidental injuries and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation fastened upon non-applicant No. 3 is not in dispute.

¶31

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶32

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal assessed income of deceased aged about 21 years as ₹ 8,000 per month. He contended that even if occupation of deceased is to be considered to be labourer then also his income ought to have been more than what is assessed by learned Claims Tribunal. He submits that the award of future prospects, application of deduction and multiplier as also award under the other conventional heads are just and proper.

¶33

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that claimants failed to prove income of deceased by placing clinching evidence, therefore, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased notionally. The award of compensation in the facts of the case is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶34

Perusal of record of claim case would show that claims Tribunal considered age of deceased as 21 years and his occupation to be one of the labourer. Claimants in their claim application have pleaded income of deceased as ₹ 9,000 per month from the agricultural labourer. Date of accident is

¶35

4 / 5

¶36

03.11.2021 and as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the unskilled labourer of c-zone area for that period was ₹ 9280 per month. However, as the claimants have pleaded monthly income of deceased as ₹ 9,000, therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as ₹ 9,000 per month.

¶37

Further perusal of award would show that the Tribunal has added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deducted 1/3 towards persona and living expenses and applied multiplier of 18, which in the opinion of this Court are correctly applied in the facts of the case and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma vs . Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 .

¶38

Claims Tribunal further awarded amount of compensation towards loss of consortium to all the three claimants which is also in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . Tribunal has further awarded amount under the heads of loss of estate of ₹ 15,000 and funeral expenses of ₹ 15,000, added 10% to the amount quantified under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses which is also as per the directives in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) .

¶39

For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to

¶40

appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under.

¶41

Particulars	Compensation
• Annual Loss of income/ dependency =	₹ 18,14,400/-
₹ 1,08,000/- (₹ 9000x12)
• Addition towards loss of future prospects @
40% (₹ 1,08,000 + 40% of ₹ 1,08,000 =
₹ 1,51,200)

¶42

5 / 5

¶43

• Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living
expenses (₹ 1,51,200 x 1/3= ₹ 50,400);
₹ 1,51,200 - ₹ 50,400 = ₹ 1,00,800/-
• Multiplier of 18
₹ 1,00,800 x 18 = ₹ 18,14,400/-
Loss of consortium to Appellants (₹ 44,000 x3) ₹ 1,32,000/-
Loss of estate ₹ 16,500/-
Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/-
Total ₹ 19,79,400/-

¶44

Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 19,79,400/- instead of ₹ 17,77,800/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

¶45

Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶46

Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶50

pwn

Smt. Sushila Mandavi v. Mohan Pradhani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushila Mandavi v. Mohan Pradhani

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

Prakash Vs Itwar Lal

Abhijeet Singh Chandel Vs Rameshwar Kewat

Arjun Vs Shivprakash Manikpuri

Chandrashekhar Vs Bhuneshwar Dewangan

Smt. Mehtareen Bai Dhruw Vs Abdul Rashid Baig

Smt. Jema Kashyap Vs Kartik Nag