Sundri Bai Pradhan Vs Anuret Dhnuhar Urf Anuresh Kumar

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

2025:CGHC:55697

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 965 of 2024

¶7

1 - Sundri Bai Pradhan W/o Late Roshan Singh Pradhan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Pachra, Ward No. 09, Ndiyapara, Tehsil- Podi Uproda, P.S. Bango, Distt. Korba, C.G.

¶8

2 - Jagdish Singh Pradhan S/o Late Roshan Singh Pradhan Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Pachra, Ward No. 09, Ndiyapara, Tehsil- Podi Uproda, P.S. Bango, Distt. Korba, C.G.

¶9

3 - Tankar Singh Pradhan S/o Late Roshan Singh Pradhan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Pachra, Ward No. 09, Ndiyapara, Tehsil- Podi Uproda, P.S. Bango, Distt. Korba, C.G.

¶10

4 - Ku. Purnima Pradhan D/o Late Roshan Singh Pradhan Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Goardian Mother Sundri Bai Pradhan, W/o Late Roshan Singh Pradhan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Pachra, Ward No. 09, Ndiyapara, Tehsil- Podi Uproda, P.S. Bango, Distt. Korba, C.G.

¶11

... Appellant(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Anuret Dhnuhar Urf Anuresh Kumar S/o Dharam Shay Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Matin, Ghoghrapara, Post- Jatga Tehsil- Podi Uproda P.S. Bango, Distt. Korba, C.G. (Driver / Owner)

¶14

2 - United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Transport Nagar Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, C.G., Insurer

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

2

¶17

For Appellants	: Shri Shivam Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	: None though served.
For Respondent No.2	: Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶19

14.11.2025

¶20

The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 30.12.2023, passed in Claim Case No.79 of 2022 by the learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.4,27,540/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Roshan Singh Pradhan.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the age of the deceased was 69 years at the time of accident. He would contend that he was dashed by a motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.12 BF 5156 on 27.1.2022 at about 1:00 pm. He would contend that he was working as a vegetable vendor and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,812/- per month, which is at lower side. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded only a meagre amount towards consortium to claimants No.2 to 4. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. He would submit

¶23

3

¶24

that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by producing cogent evidence. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶26

Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 69 years at the time of accident and he was a vegetable vendor. These facts have not been disputed or rebutted by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs.6,812/-, which appears at lower side. In absence of cogent evidence, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix to assess the monthly notional income of the deceased. The admissible wages for an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2022 was Rs.9,280/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken the same into account while assessing the income of the deceased. Further, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.44,000/- to claimant No.1 and only Rs.44,000/- to claimants No.2 to 4 towards loss of consortium, which appears to be erroneous. Thus, the compensation requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below:

¶27

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 6,812 x12 = Rs.	Rs. 9,280 x 12 = Rs.
		81,744/-	1,11,360/-
2.	Future Prospect	---	---

¶28

4

¶29

3.	Deduction	(-) 1/4th (20,436/ (1,35,408 – 33,852 61,308/-	-) = (-) 1/4th (27,840/-) (Rs.1,11,360-27,840) = Rs. 83,520/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 5 = Rs. (61,308 5 = 3,06,540/-)	x (x) 5 = Rs. (83,520 x 5 = 4,17,600/-)
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 88,000/-	Rs. 44,000 x 4 = 1,76,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 4,27,540/-	Rs. 6,26,600/-

¶30

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.4,27,540/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.6,26,600/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.4,27,540/- , the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,99,060/- . The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% 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.

¶31

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

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Nimmi

Sundri Bai Pradhan v. Anuret Dhnuhar Urf Anuresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundri Bai Pradhan v. Anuret Dhnuhar Urf Anuresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. P. Neelaveni Vs Saroj Verma

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Umesh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ravindra Kumar Rajwade

Smt. Buchki Baghel Vs Jogaram Kodopi

Mayavati Gaharvariya Vs Rajendra Kumar Dubey

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Savita Bai Chouhan