Smt. Samrin Bai Vs Trijugirao Bhosale

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.27 18:12:49 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:16763

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1671 of 2023

¶7

1 - Smt. Samrin Bai W/o Late Govind Ram Baiga, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Chatauna, P.S. Kota, Chowki Belgahana, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Lavkesh Kumar, S/o Late Govind Ram Baiga, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Chatauna, P.S. Kota, Chowki Belgahana, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Trijugirao Bhosale S/o Baldau Ram Bhosale, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Pendarwa P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)..........(Driver Of O昀昀ending Vehicle Tata Jest Bearing Registration No. C.G.-10-Al-2944)

¶12

2 - Bhimsen Agrawal S/o Nanakchand Agrawal, Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 1294 Ward No. 06, Padni Ujjawal Nagar, Nawadih Chowk, Seepat, Ps. Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..........(Owner Of O昀昀ending Vehicle Tata Jest Bearing Registration No. C.G.-10-Al2944)

¶13

3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch O昀케ce- Jeevan Beema Head Branch Building, First Floor, Magarpara

¶14

2

¶15

Road, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...........(Insurer Of O昀昀ending Vehicle Tata Jest Bearing Registration No. C.G.-10-Al-2944)

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

For Appellants	: Ms. Shreya	Jaiswal, Advocate on
	behalf of Shri	N.K. Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Shri P. Dutta,	Advocate

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

10/04/2026

¶21

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) calls in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 1.8.2023 passed by the 1^st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.96 of 2022.

¶22

2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,16,400 on account of death of Govind Ram Baiga in an accident that occurred on 24.7.2021 by rash and negligent driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle Tata Zest bearing registration No.CG 10 AL 2944 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

¶23

3. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 49 years. He was a labour and earning Rs.12,000 per month. He met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle which resulted into his death. Total compensation of Rs.24,50,000 was claimed.

¶24

4. Respondents No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3 denied the

¶25

3

¶26

averments of the claim application. Respondent No.3/insurance company also pleaded that on the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding persons beyond the carrying capacity of the motorcycle were riding. The accident of the said motorcycle took place with an unknown pick up vehicle. The driver of the o昀昀ending vehicle did not have a licence to drive the o昀昀ending vehicle. The insurance company also raised dispute over registration, 昀椀tness, permit and insurance policy of the o昀昀ending vehicle. The insurance company also pleaded violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in driving the o昀昀ending vehicle.

¶27

5. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation.

¶28

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was aged about 49 years. He was a labour and earning Rs.12,000 per month. The appellants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Thus, this Court can safely assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.11,000, which the learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding to Rs.9,280 per month. Learned counsel prays that a suitable enhancement may be made in the compensation.

¶29

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company supports the impugned award. He submits that no documentary evidence is brought on record to support the income of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly

¶30

4

¶31

income of the deceased rightly and has awarded just compensation. He submits that no interference is warranted.

¶32

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with due care.

¶33

9. According to the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 49 years. He was a labour and earning Rs.12,000 per month. The appellants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Considering all aspects of the matter and the evidence available on record, this Court can safely assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.11,000.

¶34

10. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner:

¶35

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
1	Annual Income (Rs.11,000 x 12 =)	1,32,000
2	Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,32,000 x 25% Future Prospects = Rs.33,000; Rs.1,32,000 + Rs.33,000 =)	1,65,000
3	Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.1,65,000 / 3 = Rs.55,000; Rs.1,65,000 – Rs.55,000 =)	1,10,000

¶36

5

¶37

4	Loss of Dependency after Application of Multiplier (Rs.1,10,000 x 13 =)	14,30,000
5	Funeral Expenses	16,500
6	Loss of Estate	16,500
7	Spousal Consortium to Wife	44,000
8	Parental Consortium to Son	40,000
	Total Compensation =	15,47,000
(-) Com	pensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal =	13,16,400
	Enhancement in Compensation =	2,30,600

¶38

11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.2,30,600. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of 昀椀ling of the instant appeal, i.e., 6.10.2023 till 昀椀nal payment of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with the interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, Rs.1,50,000 shall be invested in a 昀椀xed deposit in a nationalised bank in the name of appellant No.2 for a period of 2 years. Rs.50,000 shall be disbursed to appellant No.2. Remaining amount shall be disbursed to appellant No.1. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶39

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modi昀椀ed to the extent shown above.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

( Sachin Singh Rajput ) JUDGE

¶42

Gopal

Smt. Samrin Bai v. Trijugirao Bhosale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Samrin Bai v. Trijugirao Bhosale

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

Soniya Vs Janki Prasad

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Satyendra Singh

Smt. Parma Bai Joshi Vs Shivshankar Joshi

Vidyasagar Vikram Singh Vs Smt. Sushitma

Premlal Sahu Vs Mahendra Kumar Sangode

Sukhlal Vs Ratmaniya