Smt. Aghaniya Sahu Vs Bhojram Dewangan

¶1

1

¶2

AMITA DUBEY

¶3

Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.15 18:33:41 +0530

¶4

2026:CGHC:15772

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 2118 of 2024

¶8

1 - Smt. Aghaniya Sahu W/o Late Sukhsagar Sahu Aged About 45 Years Permanent R/o Village Dongi Tarai, Ward No. 8, Tehsil And Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Local Address- Shivam Vihar, Near Shivam Public School, Raipura Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants).

¶9

2 - Tilesh Sahu S/o Late Sukhsagar Sahu Aged About 18 Years Permanent R/o Village Dongi Tarai, Ward No. 8, Tehsil And Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Local Address- Shivam Vihar, Near Shivam Public School, Raipura Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Pradeep Sahu S/o Late Sukhsagar Sahu Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Mother Applicant No. 1, Smt. Aghaniya Sahu, W/o Late Sukhsagar Sahu, Permanent R/o Village Dongi Tarai, Ward No. 8, Tehsil And Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Local Address- Shivam Vihar, Near Shivam Public School, Raipura Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Thagiya Bai W/o Late Bisun Sahu Aged About 67 Years Permanent R/o Village Dongi Tarai, Ward No. 8, Tehsil And Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Local Address- Shivam Vihar, Near Shivam Public School, Raipura Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Bhojram Dewangan S/o Mohanlal Dewangan Aged About 44 Years R/o Mahavir Chowk, Ward No. 12, Patan Thana Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Scorpio No. C.G.- 04-H.M.-1490).

¶14

2

¶15

2 - Kamta Prasad Chandrakar S/o Duilal Chandrakar R/o National Corporate Park, G.E. Road, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Scorpio No. C.G.-04-H.M.-1490).

¶16

3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Scorpio No. C.G.-04-H.M.-1490).

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

For Appellants : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Neelesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Res. No. : Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advcate

¶19

3/Insurance Company

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

07.04.2026.

¶23

Heard on I. A. No. 01 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 51 days in filing the appeal.

¶24

Although opposed, for the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No. 01 of 2024 is allowed; delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the application is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

Heard on admission.

¶26

Admit.

¶27

With the consent of the parties the matter heard finally.

¶28

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 666 of 2022.

¶29

By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 13,68,800/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Sukhsagar in an accident that took place on 28.09.2022 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle(Scorpio) bearing Registration No. CG04-HM/1490

¶30

3

¶31

driven by driver/respondent No.1 Owned by Owner/respondent No. 2 insured with the Insurance Company/respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/ Sukhsagar sustained severe injuries, due to which he died.

¶32

As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Sukhsagar was aged about 47 years and was working as porterage (Hamali) and doing agriculture work and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased.

¶33

Respondent No. 1 & 2/Driver, owner and Respondent No.3/Insurance company have field their written statement, in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application. The Insurance Company further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

¶34

On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed five issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation.

¶35

11.Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased/Sukhsagar was aged about 47 years and was working as porterage (Hamali) and doing agriculture work and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month whereas the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 7,800/-. Alternatively, he submits that looking to the date of accident, atleast minimum wages should have been taken for assessment of compensation and amount on other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, suitable enhancement may be made by this Court.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3. supports the award and submits that in view of evidence available on record and findings of the learned Tribunal is justified and just compensation has been awarded.

¶37

4

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

¶39

Considering the evidence available on record; number of dependents; age of the deceased; date of accident; nature of job & minimum wages prevailing at that time this Court is of the view that Rs. 10,000/- can be safely taken as income of the deceased.

¶40

In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National 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:-

¶41

S.N	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	Monthly Income of the deceased	10,000/-
2.	Future Prospects @ 25%	2500/-
3.	Total Income	12,500/-
4.	Total Yearly Income	12,500X12=1,50,000/-
5.	Personal expenditure (1/4)	1,50,000/4= 37,500/-
6.	Net Income	1,50,000-37,500=1,12,500/-
7.	Multiplier of 13 applied to assess total loss of dependency	1,12,500X13= 14,62,500/-
8.	Funeral Expenses	16,500/-
9.	Loss of estate	16,500/-
	Spousal Consortium	44,000/-
10.	Filial and Parental Consortium	01,20,000/-(40,000/-each to A-2 to A-4)
	Total compensation	16,59,500/-

¶42

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 13,68,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 16,59,500/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 13,68,800/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,90,700/-. the additional amount shall carry interest

¶43

5

¶44

@6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 05.11.2024 The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶45

The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation and enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from today, on such deposit being made, one F.D. of Rs. 1 lacs shall be made in the name of appellant No. 1/ Smt. Aghaniya Sahu and Rs. 50,000/- each shall be disbursed to appellant Nos. 2 to 4. and remaining amount shall be disbursed to the appellant No. 1.

¶46

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶49

Ami

Smt. Aghaniya Sahu v. Bhojram Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Aghaniya Sahu v. Bhojram Dewangan

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

Abhay Kumar Banjare Vs Sunil Sagar

Branch Manager Vs Pawan Saay

Amrita Kumari Sooryavanshi Vs Sanjay Kumar Shyam

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Patiram Baghel

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Ramsingh Kashyap

Vidhyanand Dewangan Vs Akash Bahidar