Smt. Asu Gond Vs Mantosh Sahu

1 - Smt. Asu Gond Wife Of Late Khoman Gond Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village And Post Tarsinva, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)

¶10

2 - Ku. Truti Dhruv Daughter Of Late Khoman Gond Aged About 5 Years (Minor, Through Natural Guradian Mother Smt. Asu Gond Wife Of Late Khoman Gond, Resident Of Village And Post Tarsinva, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Jitendra Son Of Late Khoman Gond Aged About 3 Years (Minor, Through Natural Guradian Mother Smt. Asu Gond Wife Of Late Khoman Gond, Resident Of Village And Post Tarsinva, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Smt. Kehsar Bai Wife Of Late Mannu Lal Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village And Post Tarsinva, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Somanram Son Of Mannuram Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Village And Post Tarsinva, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Appellant(s)

¶15

versus

¶16

1 - Mantosh Sahu Son Of Anil Sahu Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Shahid Chowk Kumharpara, Ward No. 13, Narayanpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District - Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Truck No. Cg-21/f-7952) 2 - Anil Sahu Son Of Rambharos Sahu Aged About 57 Years Resident Of Shahid Chowk Kumharpara, Ward No. 13 Narayanpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District - Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Truck No. Cg-21/f-7952)

¶17

3 - Branch Manager Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Ward No. 25, Gurugovind Singh Ward, Second Floor, Simarn Tower Pandari Road, Infront Of L.I.C. Building, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Truck No. Cg-21/f-7952)

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Appellants	:	Mr.Anil KumarGulati,Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1	:	Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate
& 2
For RespondentNo. 3	:	Mr. SangeetKumar Kushwaha,Advocate

¶20

2

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

13.04.2026

¶24

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, (C.G.) (for short learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 139/2022.

¶25

1. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 21,08,220/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Khoman Gond in an accident that took place on 13.05.2022 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No. CG-21-F-7952, driven by driver/respondent No.1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/Basant Munda sustained severe injuries, remained hospitalize for considerable period of time and died during treatment.

¶26

1. As per the pleadings, the deceased/Khoman Gond was aged about 30 years and was working as a Porter (Hamali) and was earning Rs. 500-600/- per day. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased.

¶27

1. Respondent No. 1 & 2/Driver and owner field their written statement and denied the averments of the facts. Respondent No.3/Insurance company in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

¶28

1. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 5 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation.

¶29

1. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased/Khoman Gond was aged about 30 years and was a Porter and earning Rs. 500-600/- per day, whereas the learned Tribunal assessed the daily income of the deceased/Khoman Gond to Rs. 350/- per day. Alternatively, he submits that looking to the date of accident, number of dependents atleast minimum wages should have been taken for

¶30

3

¶31

assessment of compensation and amount on other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, suitable enhancement may be made by this Court.

¶32

1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 supports the award and submits that in view of evidence available on record and findings of the learned Tribunal is justified and just compensation has been awarded.

¶33

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

¶34

1. Considering the evidence available on record; number of dependents; age of the deceased; date of accident; nature of job & minimum wages prevailing at that time and two minor children aged about 5 years and 3 years, therefore, this Court is of the view that Rs. 11,000/- can be safely taken as income of the deceased.

¶35

1. In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:-

¶36

S.N	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	MonthlyIncome of the deceased	11,000/-
2.	Future Prospects@40%	4,400/-
3.	Total Income	15,400/-
4.	Total YearlyIncome	15,400 X12= 1,84,400/-
5.	Personal expenditure(1/4)	1,84,400/4= 46,200/-
6.	Net Income	1,84,400- 46,200= 1,38,600/-
6.	Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency	1,38,600 X17= 23,56,200/-
7.	Funeral Expenses	16,500/-
8.	Loss of estate	16,500/-
	Spousal Consortium	44,000/-
9.	Parental & Filial Consortium	01,20,000/-(40,000/-each to A-2 to A-4)
	Total compensation	25,53,200/-

¶37

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 21,08,220/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 25,53,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 21,08,220/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,44,980/-. The

¶38

4

¶39

additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 12.06.2024. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶40

The respondent No. 3–Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of sixty (60) days from today. Upon such deposit being made, a sum of Rs. 1.50,000/- each shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 2 & 3 in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in any Nationalized Bank until they attain the age of majority. A sum of Rs. 75,000/- shall be invested in the names of appellant No.1 in FDR in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. Rs. 50,000/- shall be disbursed to to the appellant No. 4. The balance amount shall be released to appellant No. 1 by way of bank transfer/account payee cheque.

¶41

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶44

H.Ansari

Smt. Asu Gond v. Mantosh Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Asu Gond v. Mantosh 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

Sukhlal Vs Ratmaniya

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajkumari Verma Alias Damini

Smt. Samrin Bai Vs Trijugirao Bhosale

Nagesh Thakur Vs Shivkumar Pal

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Premin Bai Dhruv

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Sushila Yadav