Partly allowed

Smt. Saraswati Bai Barve v. Dhanuwaram @ Girdhari

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026MAC/1010/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an eviction appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court enhanced conventional heads of compensation by 10% in line with Supreme Court principles, making an additional payment to five claimants.

What did the court decide?

An additional enhancement of Rs. 23,000 towards conventional heads of compensation, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

Smt. Saraswati Bai Barve Vs Dhanuwaram @ Girdhari — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010169192023

2026:CGHC:40647

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1010 of 2023

¶7

1 - Smt. Saraswati Bai Barve W/o Late Shri Shyam Sundar Barve, Aged About 38 Years R/o Pandatarai, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, At Present R/o Near Matachoura, Kududand, Bilsapur P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Om Prakash Barve, S/o Late Shri Shyam Sundar Barve, Aged About 22 Years R/o Pandatarai, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, At Present R/o Near Matachoura, Kududand, Bilsapur P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Kshama Barve, S/o Late Shri Shyam Sundar Barve, Aged About 20 Years R/o Pandatarai, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, At Present R/o Near Matachoura, Kududand, Bilsapur P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4 - Smt. Janaki Bai Barve, W/o Rikhiram Barve, Aged About 63 Years R/o Pandatarai, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, At Present R/o Near Matachoura, Kududand, Bilsapur P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5 - Rikhiram Barve, S/o Mayaram Barve, Aged About 63 Years R/o Pandatarai, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, At Present R/o Near Matachoura, Kududand, Bilsapur P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Appellants

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Dhanuwaram @ Girdhari S/o Lakhandas Chandrasen, Aged About 53 Years R/o Kosamtara, P.S. Faserpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration C.G. 28-K/7467)

¶15

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.09.17 17:01:43 +0530

¶16

¶17

2 - Branch Manager, Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Fourth Floor, Gwalani Chamber, T-8, Near Icici Bank, Main Road, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration C.G. 28-K/7467)

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Appellants : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : None. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶21

(17.09.2026)

¶22

1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act of 1988" ) by the appellants/claimants assailing the award dated 17.02.2023 passed by learned 10^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No.1349/2021, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,79,000/on account of the death of Shyam Sundar Barve (45 years), who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.04.2021.

¶23

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has failed to grant the requisite enhancement of 10% towards the conventional heads, namely loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads deserves suitable enhancement in accordance with the settled principles of law.

¶24

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent

¶25

¶26

No.2/Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶27

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions and carefully perused the entire record.

¶28

5. Upon perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, aggregating to Rs.2,30,000/- under the conventional heads. Since the accident occurred on 19.04.2021, the claimants are entitled to an enhancement of 10% on the amounts payable under the conventional heads as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Accordingly, the amounts payable towards loss of estate and funeral expenses stand enhanced to Rs.16,500/- each, while the amount payable towards loss of consortium comes to Rs.44,000/-.

¶29

6. It is also not in dispute that there are five (5) claimants. Hence, all the claimants shall be entitled towards loss of consortium of Rs.44,000/- each, totalling Rs.2,20,000/-.

¶30

7. Thus, the compensation payable under the conventional heads is recomputed as under:

¶31

Loss of Estate : Rs.16,500/Funeral Expenses : Rs.16,500/Loss of Consortium (Rs.44,000/- × 5) : Rs.2,20,000/Total : Rs.2,53,000/-

¶32

8. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,30,000/- under the conventional heads, the appellants become entitled to an additional sum of Rs.23,000/- (2,53,000 – 2,30,000) under the said heads.

¶33

¶34

9. Consequently, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled to an additional/enhanced compensation of Rs.23,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its actual realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered.

¶35

10. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶36

11. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced/additional amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants reside.

¶37

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶38

H.L. Sahu

Smt. Saraswati Bai Barve v. Dhanuwaram @ Girdhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saraswati Bai Barve v. Dhanuwaram @ Girdhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases