Laxmin Bai Chouhan Vs Satyanarayan Gond

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2026:CGHC:5659

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1849 of 2024

¶7

1 - Laxmin Bai Chouhan W/o Late Ramkishan Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Rankot, P.S. Hasaud, DistrictSakti Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kartik Chouhan S/o Late Rakishan, Aged About 18 Years ( Brother ) R/o Village Rankot, P.S. Hasaud, DistrictSakti Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Dinesh Chouhan S/o Late Ramkishan Aged About 15 Years ( Brother) Minor Through- Legal Natural Guadian Mother Laxmin Bai R/o Village Rankot, P.S. Hasaud, DistrictSakti Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - Sadhna D/o Late Ramkishan Aged About 12 Years (Sister ) Minor Through Legal Natural Gaurdian Mother Laxmin Bai R/o Village Rankot, P.S. Hasaud, District- Sakti Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Satyanarayan Gond S/o Sahasram Gond, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bailachua, P.S. And Tahsil Sakti, District- Sakti Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle Pickup Bearing Registration No. C.G. 11 A. X. 2131 )

¶13

2 - Puranchan Dubey S/o Devdhar Prasad Dubey, R/o Village Hardi Adbhar, P.S. Malkharouda Chowki Adbhar, District- Sakti Chhattisgrh.( Owener Of Offending Vehicle Pickup Bearing Registration No. C.G. 11 A. X. 2131 )

¶14

3 - Magma H. D.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. 1st Floor Block A- 1, Pujari Chamber Pachpedi Naka Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Pickup Bearing Registration No. C.G. 11 A. X. 2131 )

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

2

¶17

For Appellants : Ms. Nita Choubey, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶19

Judgment on Board

¶20

02/02/2026

¶21

Heard on admission.

¶22

Admit.

¶23

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶24

The claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation, assailing the award passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti in Claim Case No. 52 of 2023, dated 22.07.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of 11,28,400/- with interest at the rate of₹ 6% per annum on account of the death of Anil Chouhan.

¶25

Facts in brief are that on 17.06.2023, at around 12.15 pm, while Anil Chouhan, Ramdas Bairagi and Shani Chouhan were standing on the side of the road. The driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. pickup bearing registration No. CG-17-AX-2131, by driving it rashly and negligently dashed them. As a result, they sustained injuries and during the course of treatment, Anil Chouhan and Shani Chouhan lost their lives, whereas Ramdas Bairagi sustained grievous injuries.

¶26

A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the claimants. They pleaded that on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 20 years and was earning 20,000/- per₹ month. It was further pleaded that the siblings were dependent upon the income of the deceased.

¶27

Respondent No.1 the driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.2/owner filed reply and stated that on the date of the

¶28

3

¶29

accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. The insurance company filed its reply and stated that accident was a hit-and-run case and the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident. It was alleged that there was collusion between claimant, driver/owner, motorcycle owner. The plea of contributory negligence was also taken.

¶30

The learned Tribunal framed issues, the parties led evidence, and thereafter the award was passed.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal erred in discarding the evidence regarding income of the deceased and wrongly assessed it 7,000/- per month.₹ She contended that in absence of documentary evidence regarding income, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wages matrix. She would further contend that the learned Tribunal failed to grant compensation towards loss of consortium to Claimant Nos. 2, 3 and 4; thus, she would pray for enhancement of compensation.

¶32

10.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions and contend that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. She would further submit that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading documentary evidence.

¶33

11.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶34

12.AW-1 Laxmi Bai Chouhan failed to produce documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased. She merely stated that her son Anil Chouhan was working with LSG Sky Chef and was earning 20,000/-₹ per month. AW-2 Santosh Kumar is an eyewitness to the incident. NAW-1 Laxmi Narayan Luhar, the investigator appointed by the

¶35

4

¶36

insurance company, failed to establish that there was any breach of policy conditions or the vehicle was planted in the accident.

¶37

13.Taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimants, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal rightly treated the deceased an unskilled labourer.

¶38

14.The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of June 2023 was 9,900/-, and the learned Tribunal should have taken₹ that figure while computing the income of the deceased. The claimants specifically contended that Claimant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were dependent on the income of the deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have granted compensation towards loss of consortium to Claimant Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶39

15.On other heads, the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation.

¶40

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and is revisited as under:-

¶41

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Comp awarded	ens by t	ation his Court
1	Annual Income	7,000 × 12 = ₹ 84,000 ₹	9,900 ₹ 1,18,800 ₹	×	12 =
2	Deduction (1/2)	84,000 ÷ 2 = ₹ 42,000 ₹	1,18,800 ₹ 59,400 ₹	÷	2 =
		40% of 42,000 = ₹	40% of	5 ₹	9,400 =
3	Future	16,800 ₹	23,760 ₹
	Prospects (40%)	42,000 + 16,800 ₹ ₹	59,400 + ₹	23 ₹	,760
		= 58,800 ₹	= 83,160 ₹
4	Mltili (18)	58,800 × 18 = ₹	83,160 ₹	×	18 =
	uper	10,58,400 ₹	14,96,88 ₹	0
5	Loss of Consortium	40,000 ₹	40,000 ₹ 1,60,000 ₹	×	4 =

¶42

5

¶43

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
6	Loss of Estate	15,000 ₹	15,000 ₹
7	Funeral Expenses	15,000 ₹	15,000 ₹
8	Total Compensation	11,28,400 ₹	16,86,880 ₹
9	Final Compensation	16,86,880- ₹ 11,28,400 = ₹	Rs.5,58,480/-

¶44

In view of the above calculation, the claimants shall be entitled to an additional sum of ₹5,58,480/- . The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation ₹5,58,480/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the appellants/claimants within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Nadim

Laxmin Bai Chouhan v. Satyanarayan Gond

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmin Bai Chouhan v. Satyanarayan Gond

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

Sita Bai (Died and deleted) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Surojiya Vs Deepak Sahu

Branch Manager Vs Gahru Singh Baiga

Narayan Bhagat Vs Rajesh Kumar Mishra

Akshay Das Vs Babban Rai S/o Mohar Rai

M/S Amar Infrastructure Limited ( Formerly Amar Builders ) Vs State of Chhattisgarh