Smt. Punni Bai Vs Raju Nayak

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Digitally signed SHUBHAM by SHUBHAMSINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.05.07 18:06:38 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1227 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on :05.05.2026 Judgment Delivered on :07.05.2026

¶6

1 - Samaru @ Chumtul Satnami S/o Shri. Narayan Satnami, Aged About 50 Years R/o- Village- Thelkobeda Amsena, Thana- Khariyar Road, Civil And Revenue District- Nuapada, Orissa., Orissa

¶7

2 - Ramratan, S/o. Shri Samaru @ Chumtul Satnami, Aged About 26 Years R/o- Village- Thelkobeda Amsena, Thana- Khariyar Road, Civil And Revenue District- Nuapada, Orissa., District : Nuapada *, Orissa

¶8

3 - Rajkumar, S/o. Shri Samaru @ Chumtul Satnami, Aged About 22 Years R/o- Village- Thelkobeda Amsena, Thana- Khariyar Road, Civil And Revenue District- Nuapada, Orissa., District : Nuapada *, Orissa

¶9

4 - Ku. Anju, D/o. Shri Samaru @ Chumtul Satnami, Aged About 20 Years R/o- Village- Thelkobeda Amsena, Thana- Khariyar Road, Civil And Revenue District- Nuapada, Orissa., District : Nuapada *, Orissa

¶10

5 - Ku. Rukmani, D/o. Shri Samaru @ Chumtul Satnami, Aged About 18 Years R/o- Village- Thelkobeda Amsena, Thana- Khariyar Road, Civil And Revenue District- Nuapada, Orissa., District : Nuapada, Orissa

¶11

6 - Raja, S/o. Shri Samaru @ Chumtul Satnami, Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Shri Samaru @ Chumtul Satnami, R/o- Village- Thelkobeda Amsena, Thana-

¶12

2

¶13

Khariyar Road, Civil And Revenue District- Nuapada, Orissa,......Claimants.

¶14

--- Appellants

¶15

versus

¶16

1 - Raju Nayak S/o. Anand Nayak, Aged About 21 Years R/o- VillageBasna, Thana- Basna, Civil And Revenue District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh,.....Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg-04/jc/8823.

¶17

2 - Smt. Manjud Devi Agrawal, W/o. Shri Jaypal Agrawal, R/oAghariyapara Gram Bhairopur, Bhagatdeori, Thana And TahsilPithoura, Civil And Revenue DistrictMahasamund Chhattisgarh,.....Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg-04/jc/8823., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶18

3 - Divisional Manager, United India, Insurance Company Limited, Krishna Complex Kachahari Chowk Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh,......Insurer Of The Vehicle No. Cg-04/jc/8823., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

--- Respondents

¶20

MAC No. 1226 of 2016

¶21

1 - Smt. Punni Bai W/o. Shri Bhuwan Satnami, Aged About 48 Years R/o- Village- Thelkobeda Amsena, Thana- Khariyar Road, Civil And Revenue District- Nuapada, Orissa,.......Claimant., Orissa

¶22

---Appellant

¶23

Versus

¶24

1 - Raju Nayak S/o. Anand Nayak, Aged About 21 Years R/o- VillageBasna, Thana- Basna, Civil And Revenue District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh,.....Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg-04/jc/8823., Chhattisgarh

¶25

3

¶26

2 - Smt. Manjud Devi Agrawal, W/o. Shri Jaypal Agrawal, R/oAghariyapara Gram Bhairopur, Bhagatdeori, Thana And TahsilPithoura, Civil And Revenue DistrictMahasamund Chhattisgarh,.....Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg-04/jc/8823., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶27

3 - Divisional Manager, United India, Insurance Company Limited, Krishna Complex Kachahari Chowk Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh,......Insurer Of The Vehicle No. Cg-04/jc/8823., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶28

--- Respondent(s)

¶29

(Cause-titles are taken from CIS)

¶30

For Claimants	: Mr.	Rajendra Patel, Advocate
For Insurance Company	: Ms.	Swati Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No.2	: Mr.	Wasim Miyan, Advocate

¶31

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶32

CAV Judgment

¶33

In the cases, the cross appeals have also been filed by Respondent No.2. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that he has no instruction from Respondent No.2.

¶34

In view of above, since, there is no representation made by Respondent No.2, the cross appeals have been filed by her are dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶35

Since both the appeals arise out of judgment dated 13.05.2016, passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims

¶36

4

¶37

Tribunal, FTC, District Mahasamund (C.G.), in Claim Cases No. 41/2014 & 40/2014, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

¶38

The gist of the claims before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 25.10.2013, Pawan, son of Shantilal of village Sapos, was taking guests at his house, deceased Santarabai and Bhuvan Satnami, on his motorcycle bearing No. CG-06D/2508 to Sankara to board a bus. Near the dhaba at village Baldidih on NH-53, the driver of truck No. CG-04JC-8823, Raju Nayak, coming from the Raipur side, drove the vehicle at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from behind, causing an accident. As a result, Bhuvan Satnami and Santarabai, who were sitting on the rear seat of the motorcycle, sustained fatal injuries on their heads and other parts of the body, and died on the spot. On the report of the incident being lodged at Police Station Pithora, Crime was registered.

¶39

In Claim Case No. 41/2014, it is claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Santara Bai was aged about 45 years and was married. She was earning Rs.200/- per day by working as a labour. Due to the casual death of Santara Bai, there is an irreparable loss to the appellant/claimants who are the husband and children of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants had preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 18,30,000/-.

¶40

In Claim Case No. 40/2014, it is claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Bhuwan Satnami was aged about 50 years and was married. He was earning Rs.200/- per day by working as a labour. Due to the casual death of

¶41

5

¶42

Bhuwan, there is an irreparable loss to the appellant/claimant who is his wife. Therefore, the claimant had preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 13,86,000/-.

¶43

In Claim Case No. 41/2014, the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. 36,000/- per annum. Considered the age of the deceased as 60 years and the fact that the claimants are the husband and children of the deceased, 1/6th of the income was deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.6,000/-. Considered the fact that the deceased was aged about 60 years, multiplier of 8 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.2,40,000/-. Further, a total amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has been awarded under other heads. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,20,000/-. However, the Tribunal considered 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle (not impleaded as a party), therefore, awarded 50% of the total compensation amount i.e. Rs.2,10,000/in favour of the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum against respondents, from the date of application till its realization and in default of payment of compensation 9% rate of interest shall be applied. Hence, the appeal (MAC No. 1227/2016) is for enhancement.

¶44

In Claim Case No. 40/2014, the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. 36,000/- per annum. Considered the age of the deceased as 60 years and the

¶45

6

¶46

fact that the claimant is wife of the deceased, 1/2 of the income was deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.18,000/-. Considered the fact that the deceased was aged about 60 years, multiplier of 8 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.1,44,000/-. Further, a total amount of Rs.80,000/- has been awarded under other heads. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.2,24,000/-. However, the Tribunal considered 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle (not impleaded as a party), therefore, awarded 50% of the total compensation amount i.e. Rs.1,12,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum against respondents, from the date of application till its realization and in default of payment of compensation 9% rate of interest shall be applied. Hence, the appeal (MAC No. 1227/2016) is also for enhancement.

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in both the claim cases is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. Learned counsel for appellants urged that the Tribunal erred in not assessing future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased could have earned much more in the near future if they had not met with the accident. The Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation under other heads which also needs to be enhanced suitably. Therefore, these appeals may be allowed and needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶48

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the accident occurred due to the

¶49

7

¶50

negligence of the motorcycle rider, who was carrying three persons on the motorcycle, therefore, 50% of the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle has rightly been assessed by the Tribunal. Further, the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly awarded the compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference.

¶51

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶52

12.In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶53

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶54

MAC No. 1227/2016

¶55

14.As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/-. per month from the work of labouring, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price

¶56

8

¶57

index and cost of living etc. specially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 5,163/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 25.10.2013. The annual income comes to Rs. 61,956/-. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects would be 10%. Hence, after adding 10% towards future prospect i.e. Rs.6,195/-, the yearly income comes to Rs.68,151/-.

¶58

15.The deceased was married person aged around 60 years and the claimants are the husband and children (total 6 persons) of the deceased, so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th instead of 1/6th i.e. Rs. 17,037/-. After deduction of the same, the annual dependency comes to Rs.51,114/-. Since the deceased was married and aged around 60 years. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be 9 instead of 8 as held by the Tribunal. Hence, after applying multiplier of 9, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 4,60,026/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the appellants are also entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each i.e. Rs.2,40,000/- (40000 x 6) towards love and affection. Therefore, the claimants would become

¶59

9

¶60

entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,30,026/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:-

¶61

Heads	Calculation
Compensation towards dependency	Rs. 4,60,026/-
Towards loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
Towards loss of love and affection to	Rs.2,40,000/-
six claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- each
Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Total	Rs. 7,30,026/-

¶62

MAC No. 1226/2016

¶63

16.As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/-. per month from the work of labouring, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. specially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 5,163/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 25.10.2013. The annual income comes to Rs. 61,956/-. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects would be 10%. Hence, after adding 10% towards future prospect i.e. Rs.6,195/-, the yearly income comes to Rs.68,151/-.

¶64

10

¶65

17.The deceased was married person aged around 60 years and the claimant is the wife of the deceased, so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 which has rightly been assessed by the Tribunal. After deduction of the same, the annual dependency comes to Rs.34,075/-. Since the deceased was married and aged around 60 years. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be 9 instead of 8 as held by the Tribunal. Hence, after applying multiplier of 9, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 3,06,675/-. The claimant is further entitled for Rs. 15,000/towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimant is also entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards love and affection. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,76,675/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation in the following

¶66

manner:-

¶67

Heads	Calculation
Compensation towards dependency	Rs. 3,06,675/-
Towards loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
Towards loss of love and affection	Rs. 40,000/-
Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Total	Rs. 3,76,675/-

¶68

On the basis of the facts and evidence available on record, the 50% contributory negligence of the truck driver and the motorcycle driver, determined by the Tribunal, is justified. Further the Tribunal held that there was a breach in a policy condition and ordered for pay and recover which is also justified and no need for intervention

¶69

11

¶70

is required.

¶71

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. Considering 50% contributory negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-06-D/2508 who was not impleaded as a party, the appellant/claimants in MAC No. 1227/2016 shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.3,65,013/- (7,30,026 x 50% = 3,65,013) instead of Rs.2,10,000/- and the appellant/claimant in MAC No. 1226/2016 shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.1,88,337/- ( 3,76,675 x 50% = 1,88,337) instead of Rs.1,12,000/- Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶72

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

¶73

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶74

Shubham

Smt. Punni Bai v. Raju Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Punni Bai v. Raju Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Hadma Kurami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailesh Kumar Rai @ Mintu Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Samaru @ Chumtul Satnami Vs Raju Nayak

Rupa Yadav Vs Dinesh Kumar Yadav

Satish Kursunghe Vs State of Chhattisgarh