Ramashankar Gupta Vs Dilip Paswan

¶1

Digitally signed ASHISH by ASHISHTIWARIDate: TIWARI 2026.04.16 10:46:22 +0530

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.A.(C) No. 1229 of 2023

¶5

1 - Ramashankar Gupta, S/o Ramratan Sao, aged about 55 years, Resident Of Ward No. 13, Ramanujganj, P.S. Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh Local Address - Ward No. 03, Ratakhar, P.S. Kotwali Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh,...(Claimants)

¶6

2 - Dewanti Gupta, W/o Rama Shankar Gupta, aged about 50 years, Resident Of Ward No. 13, Ramanujganj, P.S. Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh Local Address - Ward No. 03, Ratakhar, P.S. Kotwali Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh,...(Claimants)

¶7

--- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Dilip Paswan, S/o Late Ramji, Resident of Prakhand Meral District - Gadwa (Jharkhand)

¶10

2 - Shailesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Amir Chand Prasad Gupta, Resident Of Near Ashirwad Auto Mobile Ramanujganj Balrampur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Division Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Address - Sitamani, Railway Station Road, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Respondents __________________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Shri Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Shri Satish Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

06/04/2026

¶16

1. The appellants / claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 20.03.2023 passed by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”), Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in M.A.C.C. No. 19/2021.

¶17

2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.81,05,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.14,55,944/- with interest at the rate of 6% per

¶18

-2-

¶19

annum on account of death of deceased Deepaak Gupta who died in an accident occurred on 16.05.2023 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Hywa bearing registration No. CG-15/AC-4001 by respondent No. 1 /driver; Owned by respondent No.2/Owner and Insured by respondent No.3 (Insurance Company).

¶20

3. As per pleadings in the claim application filed under section 166 of the MV Act by the appellants/claimants, on the date of accident i.e. 16.05.2020 the deceased Deepak Gupta along-with his friend was traveling by riding his motor-cycle, at about 07:00 - 7:30AM, When they reached near Legua Pokhra, Balrampur, the driver of the offending Hywa, by driving in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased while ascending the road, as a result of which they died on the spot. The accident was reported to Police Station – Balrampur upon which offence punishable under sections 304(A) of the IPC was registered in Crime No.89/2020.

¶21

4. As per further pleadings of the claim application deceased was aged about 24 years and was performing the work at Manoj General Store and as a Suprervisor at CSPDCL Ambikapur; earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased. Thus, the above stated compensation was claimed.

¶22

5. The claim application was resisted by the respondent No. 3 on various grounds including Insurance Company took a plea that there is a violation of terms and condition of Insurance Policy, therefore the insurance company may be exonerated.

¶23

6. On the basis of above broad pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants holding the insurance company to pay the compensation and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶24

-3-

¶25

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation is on lower side; income has been wrongly assessed and no filial consortium is awarded tot he appellant No.1 (father of the deceased). Thus, suitable enhancement would be made.

¶26

8. Learned counsels for respective respondents opposing the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant; supported the impugned award and submits that the just compensation has been awarded as no document with regard to profession and income of the deceased was placed on record, therefore just compensation has been awarded which does not require any interference.

¶27

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record.

¶28

10. As per pleadings of the claim application the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month working as Supervisor at CSPDCL and in Manoj General Store. From the record it does not appears that any documentary evidence is available on record to show and profession of the deceased. Tribunal found the monthly income of the deceased on analysis of the evidence to Rs.9120/- holding him to be unskilled labour. In the considered opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal with respect to age and income cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the record thus hereby maintained. The Tribunal further added 40% future prospects in the income of the deceased and after deducting one half of the personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 18 awarded Rs.13,78,944/- for loss of dependency and further awarded Rs.70,000/- for loss consortium; funeral expenses and loss of estate and further added 10% in Rs.70,000/-, thus total Rs.77000/- on other heads, thus total awarded Rs.14,55,944/-. In the opinion of the Court the compensation is just, however

¶29

-4-

¶30

this Court is inclined to award Rs.40,000/- filial consortium to appellant No.1. Thus, while maintaining the rest of the award, this Court in addition to it award Rs.40,000/- to appellant No.1 as filial consortium to be deposited by respondent No.3 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶31

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent.

¶32

-Sd/-

¶33

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶34

-/ Ashish

Ramashankar Gupta v. Dilip Paswan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramashankar Gupta v. Dilip Paswan

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. 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

Maina Bai Vs Mahesh Namdev Barapatre

Dhalgan Sahu Vs Aslam Khan