Maina Bai Vs Mahesh Namdev Barapatre

Digitally signed ASHISH by ASHISHTIWARI TIWARI Date:2026.04.16 10:46:53 +0530

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

M.A.(C) No. 1010 of 2024

1 - Maina Bai W/o Late Nandu Nirmalkar Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village Of Village Bhedni, Post Saldha, Tahsil Berla, Police Station Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶5

2 - Kirti Nirmalkar D/o Late Nandu Nirmalkar Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Village Of Village Bhedni, Post Saldha, Tahsil Berla, Police Station Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶6

3 - Jeevan S/o Late Nandu Nirmalkar Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Village Of Village Bhedni, Post Saldha, Tahsil Berla, Police Station Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Mahesh Namdev Barapatre S/o Namdev Barapatre Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Near Ram Mandir Bhandra, Police Station And District Bhandra (M. H.) (Driver Of Swaraj Mazda No. M. H./36/aa/3183), District : Bhandara, Maharashtra

¶10

2 - Naresh Babu Raw Nandurkar S/o Babu Raw Nandurkar Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Nehru Ward Bhandra, Police Station And District Bhandra (M. H.) (Owner Of Swaraj Mazda No. M. H./36/aa/3183), District : Bhandara, Maharashtra

¶11

3 - The Branch Manager Chola Mandalam, M.S. General Insurance Company, Ward No. 25 Gurugovind Singh Ward, 2nd Floor, Simran Tawar, Pandri Road, In Front Of L. I. C. Building Pandri, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of Swaraj Mazda No. M.H./36/aa/3183), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

For Appellants : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

06/04/2026

¶17

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short

¶18

‘MV Act’) by the appellants / claimants, challenging the award dated 03.04.2024

¶19

-2-

¶20

passed by the IV Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in MACT/CIS No. 106/2023.

¶21

By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.68,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,30,080/- filed by the appellants / claimants on account of death of the deceased – Bhola Nirmalker in an accident that took place on 10.04.2023 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No. CG-25-6438 by respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / Owner and insured with the respondent No. 3 / Insurance company.

¶22

As per the pleadings in the claim application filed under Section 166 and 140 of the MV Act, on the date of accident i.e. 10.04.2023, the appellant had gone to Village – Bhedni. While returning to his home, when he reached near Nandlal Saluja Hadgaon, the driver of the offending vehicle Mazda by driving in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained severe injuries on the head and died on the spot. The accident was reported to Deverbija, Police Station – Bemetara for the offense punishable under sections 279, 337 338 and 304-A of the I.P.C. in Crime No. 201/2023 was registered against the driver of the vehicle. Charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C., Bemetara.

¶23

As per further pleading deceased was aged at about 22 years; performing the work of plumber and electrician and was earning Rs.800 - 1000/- per day. He is breadwinner of his family and three dependent upon him.

¶24

The respondent No.1 denied the averment of claim application. The respondent No. 3 also filed its statement and denied the averments, and in usual course pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license as well as permit of the offending vehicle. Thus, the insurance Company may be exonerrated.

¶25

-3-

¶26

On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed five issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that income of the appellant is on the lower side which requires enhancement.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 / Insurance Company support the award and submits that just amount of compensation has been awarded.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

Looking to the nature of job; date of accident; age of the deceased; minimum wages prevailing and number of dependents, this Court can safely assessed the monthly of the deceased at Rs.9960 /-. In the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors,

¶31

(2018) 18 SCC 130, this court is reassessing the compensation as under :-

¶32

S.No.	Head	Calculation
1.	Yearly Income	Rs.9960 x 12 = Rs.1,19,520/-
2.	40% future prospect	Rs.47808/-
3.	Total Yearly Income	Rs.1,67,328/-
4.	After 1/2 deduction for personal expenses	Rs. 1,67,328 – 83,664 = Rs.83,664/-
5.	Multiplier of 18 to be applied	83,664 X 18 = Rs. 15,05,952/-
6.	Towards loss of estate and funeral	Rs.33,000/-
7.	Filial consortium to mother - appellant No.1	Rs.40,000/-
	Total compensation	Rs.15,78,952/-

¶33

-4-

¶34

Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.13,30,080/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the appellants / claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.2,48,872/- along with interest of 6% from the date of filing of this appeal i.e. 09.05.2025.The amount shall be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On deposit being made, Rs.2,00,000/- be invested as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank in the name of appellant No.1 for two years.Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.1 by bank transaction / account payee cheque.

¶35

Appeal thus partly allowed with modification in the award impugned to the above extent.

¶36

Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶37

. Ashish

Maina Bai v. Mahesh Namdev Barapatre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maina Bai v. Mahesh Namdev Barapatre

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

Smt. Laxmi Koshle Vs Dinesh Kumar Koshle

Pramod Das Vs Asheshwar Yadav

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Bhoj Kumar

Vikas Singhal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramashankar Gupta Vs Dilip Paswan

Dhalgan Sahu Vs Aslam Khan