Dismissed¶¶28

Naresh v. Lokeshwar Kanwar

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jun 2026MAC/1308/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; MAC 1308 of 2026; Justice Sachin Singh Rajput; Section 173 MV Act enhancement appeal dismissed at admission stage; Tribunal award Rs.5,72,000 upheld; deceased aged 70 carpenter Rs.500/day; multiplier 5; filial consortium; Universal Sompo General Insurance; offending vehicle CG-05/AP-6034; claimant counsel Anil Gulati.

What did the court decide?

Considering the age of the deceased and the appellants, the learned Tribunal committed no error in passing the award; no enhancement is warranted. ¶¶28

Naresh Vs Lokeshwar Kanwar — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:24720

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1308 of 2026

¶6

1 - Naresh S/o Late Bideram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bhobhlabahra, Police Station Dugali, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Sulochana D/o Late Bideram Aged About 36 Years W/o Jitendra Netam, R/o Village Rajpur, Police Station Nagari, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Lokeshwar Kanwar S/o Late Jairam Kanwar Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Police Station Dugali, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Number CG-05/AP-6034)

¶11

2 - Narottam Kumar Markam S/o Suknath Markam Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Police Station Dugali, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Number CG-05/ AP-6034)

¶12

3 - Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office, First Floor, B-7, Shriram Nagar, Tower Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.), Through Branch Manager, Shop No. 1, 2, 3, Third Floor, Ashoka Millennium Ring Road No.1, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Number CG- 05/ AP- 6034)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant (s) : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None

¶15

¶16

({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

Order on Board

18/06/2026

Heard on admission.

This is an appeal by the claimants filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V.Act”) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in their favour by the learned Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari, C.G. (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28/04/2026 in Motor Accident Claim Case No.112/2025.

¶21

A claim application under Section 166 of the M.V.Act was filed by the appellants/claimants seeking compensation on account of death of their father Bideram Vatti in an accident that occurred on 04/04/2025 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Motor Cycle bearing registration No.CG 05 AP/6034 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. As per pleadings in the claim application, the deceased was aged about 70 years and was earning Rs.500/- per day working as Carpenter. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased and a total compensation of Rs.36,00,000/- was claimed.

¶22

The driver/owner (respondents 1 and 2) filed their written statement and denied the averments in the claim application. Respondent No.3/insurance company also filed written statement, denied the averments and also took a plea of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Tribunal having framed issues decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.5,72,000/-.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded is on the lower side which requires suitable enhancement.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the memo of appeal and impugned award.

¶25

Learned Tribunal found age of the deceased to Rs.70 years. The claimants are the major son aged about 40 years and daughter aged about 36 years. Learned

¶26

¶27

Tribunal found monthly income of the deceased to Rs.11,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd and applying multiplier of 5 and also added Rs.4,40,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.18,000 for loss of estate and Rs.96,000/- (48000 x 2) for filial consortium. Thus, a total amount of Rs.5,72,000/- was awarded.

¶28

It is settled position of law that just compensation has to be awarded which cannot be meager or abundant. In the opinion of this Court, looking to the age of the deceased and the appellants, learned Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the award. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.

¶29

Sd/({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE

¶30

Deepti

¶31

Digitally
signed byDEEPTI
DEEPTI HARIKUMAR
HARIKUMAR Date:
2026.06.22
14:39:44
+0530

Naresh v. Lokeshwar Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh v. Lokeshwar Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Derhin Bai Vs Basant Sahu

Ashok Kumar Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Branch Manager, Vs Ram Lai

Kailash Patel Vs Asharam Nirala

Smt. Pyari Bai Sahu Vs Animesh Chakravorti

Pragatisheel Paper Mill Shramik Sangh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.