Sabita Devi Vs Kamesh Uraon

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:19425

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1443 of 2023

¶6

1 - Sabita Devi W/o Matukdhari Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Rodo, Post Bairiya, P.S. Bhandariya, District Gadwa (Jharkhand) At Present Resident Of Near Jyoti Kirana Indrasen Nagar, 27 Kholi, P.S. Civil Line Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Jeeru Devi W/o Late Naibat Singh @ Naibat Singh Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Village Rodo, Post Bairiya, P.S. Bhandariya, District Gadwa (Jharkhand) At Present Resident Of Near Jyoti Kirana Indrasen Nagar, 27 Kholi, P.S. Civil Line Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Kamesh Uraon S/o Ganesh Uraon Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Thana Daltan Ganj, District Palamu (Jharkhand) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. J.H.-03 N- 2786)

¶11

2 - Amir Hussain S/o Asagar Hussain Hussain Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Quarter No. 66/a, Shilawa Road, Thana Sadar Daltan Ganj, District Palamu (Jharkhand) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. J.H.-03 N-2786)

¶12

3 - Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. First Floor, Rama Trades Centre, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. J.H.-03 N-2786)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

2

¶15

For Appellants : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 1-2 : None For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta along with Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

27/04/2026

¶19

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) being aggrieved by the award dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “learned Tribunal”) Bilaspur, C.G. in Claim Case No. 1250/2021.

¶20

By the impugned award against the claim of Rs. 35,40,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7,22,900/- as total compensation in favour of the claimants on account of death of Naibat Singh alias Naibat Singh in an accident that took place on 09.09.2020 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bus bearing registration no. JH-03N-2786 by respondent no. 1/driver.

¶21

As per pleadings of the application filed under Section 166 of MV Act, the deceased was aged about 56 years and was a vegetable vendor earning Rs. 18,000/- per month.

¶22

3

¶23

The claim application was resisted by the appellants (driver and owner) and respondent no. 4/Insurance company including the insurance company taking a plea that there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

¶24

On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the claimants.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased. Thus, suitable enhancement be made.

¶26

Counsel for respondent no. 3 supports the impugned award and submits that there is no need of interference in the award.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶28

As per the pleadings of the claim application, deceased was a vegetable vendor originally resident of Jharkhand, however, presently he was residing at Bilaspur. Further he was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal in absence of any documentary evidence found the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,600/-. In the opinion of this Court, looking to the age, nature of job, number of dependents and minimum wages at place of working spot, that Rs. 9,500/- can be safely taken as notional monthly income of the deceased.

¶29

It is settled principle of law that just compensation has to be awarded. Compensation need not be a meagre amount of compensation nor a bonanza. Thus, in light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National

¶30

4

¶31

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:-

¶32

S. No.	PARTICULARS	Awarded by this Court
1.	Monthlyincome of the deceased	Rs. 9,500/-
2.	Future prospects @ 10%	Rs. 9,500/- x 10% = Rs. 950/-
3.	Enhanced monthly income	Rs. 9500 + 950 = Rs. 10,450/-
4.	Annual income	Rs. 10,450 x 12 = Rs. 1,25,400/-
5.	Personal expenditure (1/3)	Rs. 1,25,400/3 = Rs. 41,800/-
6.	Net income	Rs. 1,25,400 – Rs. 41,800/- = Rs. 83,600/-
7.	Multiplier of 9 applied to assess total loss of dependency	Rs. 83,600 x 9 = Rs. 7,52,400/-
8.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
9.	Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
10.	Parental consortium to appellant no. 1	Rs. 40,000/-
11.	Spousal consortium to appellant no. 2	Rs. 40,000/-
12.	Total compensation	Rs. 8,62,400/-

¶33

The amount of compensation of Rs. 7,22,920/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 8,62,400/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 7,22,920/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional

¶34

5

¶35

amount of Rs. 1,39,480/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal 14.08.2023. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶36

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. 60,000/- each shall be invested in the name of appellants No. 1 & 2 in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in any Nationalized Bank for 2 years. The balance amount shall be released and distributed amongst the appellants equally by way of bank transfer/account payee cheque.

¶37

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE

¶40

Madhurima

Sabita Devi v. Kamesh Uraon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabita Devi v. Kamesh Uraon

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

Loknath Sahu @ Loku Vs Prem Bai Dhruv

Chandrakali Vs Santosh Kumar

Smt. Rekha Banjare Vs Naresh Kumar

Dhan Singh Vs Bhagwat

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rakesh Mandal

Sunil Baghel Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.