Smt. Rampyari Vs Rajesh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:16419

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 2195 of 2019

¶6

1 - Smt. Rampyari W/o Late Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Digitally signed by HARNEET HARNEET KAUR Village Salfa, Post Office- Sargaon Thana Pathariya, District Mungeli KAUR Date: 2026.04.10 11:01:10 +0530 Chhattisgarh District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Aman Kumar Sahu S/o Late Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rampyari. R/o Village Salfa, Post OfficeSargaon Thana Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Manju D/o Late Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rampyari. R/o Village Salfa, Post Office- Sargaon Thana Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Hemlata D/o Late Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rampyari. R/o Village Salfa, Post Office- Sargaon Thana Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Smt. Fuleshwari W/o Late Awadhram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Salfa, Post Office- Sargaon Thana Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

--- Appellant(s)

2

versus

1 - Rajesh S/o Chaitram Ghagare, R/o Village Bhuli Thana Pandurna, District Chindwada (M.P.) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Mazda No. M.H.12/f.C./6252)............Driver, District : Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh

¶15

2 - Purshottum S/o Suratram Bhade, R/o Ajay Nagar Ambajari, District Nagpur (Maharashtra). (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Mazda No. M.H.12/f.C./6252)................Owner, District : Nagpur, Maharashtra

¶16

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Regional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Rajeev Plaza In Front Of Old Bus Stand Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Of The Offending Vehicle Mazda No. M.H.12/f.C./6252)..............Insurer, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

MAC No. 1979 of 2019

¶19

1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited (Correct Name Assurance) Through Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Infront Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisarh. (Insurer Of Offeding Vehicle Mazda No. M.H.12-F.C. 6252), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

--- Appellant(s)

¶21

Versus

¶22

1 - Smt Rampyari Wd/o Late Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Salfa, Post Office Sargaon, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶23

3

¶24

2 - Aman Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rampyari. R/o Village Salfa, Post Office Sargaon, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶25

3 - Manju D/o Late Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 4 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rampyari. R/o Village Salfa, Post Office Sargaon, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶26

4 - Hemlata D/o Late Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 1 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rampyari. R/o Village Salfa, Post Office Sargaon, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶27

5 - Smt. Fuleshwari Wd/o Awadhram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Salfa, Post Office Sargaon, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶28

6 - Rajesh S/o Chaitram Ghagre, R/o Village Bhuli, Police Station Pandurana, District Chhindwada, Madhya Pradesh (Driver Of Offending Mazda No. M.H.12-Fc-6252) (Non-Applicant No. 1), District : Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh

¶29

7 - Purushottam S/o Suratram Bhade, R/o Ajay Nagar Ambajari, District Nagpur, Maharashtra. (Owner Of Offending Mazda No. M.H.-12-F.C.-6252) (Non-Applicant No.2), District : Nagpur, Maharashtra

¶30

--- Respondent(s)

¶31

For Claimants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates

¶32

4

¶33

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶34

Judgment On Board

¶35

09.04.2026

¶36

1. Since both of these appeals arise out of a common accident and common question of law and fact is involved in both of these appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

¶37

2. The challenge in both of these appeals has been made to the impugned award dated 03/09/2019 passed by learned 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 788/2018 whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,11,326/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants for the death of Vinod Kumar Sahu and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

¶38

3. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the appellant/claimants in MAC/2195/2019, would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced as for loss of estate and funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- each has been granted, whereas Rs. 16,500/- each ought to have been granted. Similarly, under loss of consortium, the Claims Tribunal has granted only Rs. 40,000/- whereas an amount of Rs. 44,000/- x 5 = Rs. 2,20,000/- ought to have been

¶39

5

¶40

granted, therefore, the impugned award be modified and compensation be enhanced.

¶41

4. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC/1979/2019, would submit that the compensat i on awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the higher side and is liable to be reduced as the deceased was aged about 34 years, therefore, mult i plier of 16 would be applicable instead of 17, as such, the appeal of the Insurance Company be allowed and compensat i on be reduced.

¶42

5. I have heard learned counsel for the part i es, considered their rival

¶43

submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspecton. i

¶44

MAC/1979/2019 :-

¶45

6. It is the case of the appellant/Insurance Company that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 30 years in accordance with the postmortem report whereas the Claims Tribunal ought to have relied upon the driving license of the deceased according to which the age of the deceased would be 34 years, and thus, multiplier of 16 would be applicable instead of 17.

¶46

7. Learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the claimants have stated in their claim application as well as in their evidence that the deceased was aged about 30 years and even in Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex. P/3) and postmortem report (Ex. P/4), the

¶47

6

¶48

age of the deceased has been mentioned as 30 years which has not been disputed by the non-applicants including the Insurance Company, as such, the multiplier of 17 has been applied while computing compensation. The said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any merit in this appeal.

¶49

MAC/2195/2019 :-

¶50

8. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensat i on as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has granted Rs. 15,000/- each under loss of estate and for funeral expenses whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 16,500/- each and similarly, Rs. 40,000/- has only been granted under loss of consort i um whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 44,000/- x 5 = Rs. 2,20,000/- under loss of consort i um. Thus, this Court is re-comput i ng the compensat i on as stated below :-

¶51

Sr.	Heads	Compensation	Compensation
No.		awarded by the	awarded by this
		Tribunal	Court
1.	MonthlyIncome	Rs. 9530/-	Rs. 9530/-
2.	Future Prospect	(+) 40% i.e. Rs. 3,812/-	(+) 40% i.e. Rs.
		= Rs. 13,342/-	3,812/- = Rs. 13,342/-
3.	Annual Income	Rs. 13,342/- x 12 =	Rs. 13,342/- x 12 =
		Rs. 1,60,104/-	Rs. 1,60,104/-
4.	Deduction	(-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 40,026/- =	(-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 40,026/-

¶52

7

¶53

	i	Rs. 1,20,078/-	= Rs. 1,20,078/-
5.	Multiplier	(x) 17 =	(x) 17 =
		Rs. 20,41,326/-	Rs. 20,41,326/-
6.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 40,000/-	Rs. 44,000/- x 5 =
			Rs. 2,20,000/-
7.	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 16,500/-
8.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 16,500/-
	Total	Rs. 21,11,326/-	Rs. 22,94,326/-

¶54

9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 21,11,326/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 22,94,326/-. Hence, the claimants are held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,83,000/- . Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 30/10/2018 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶55

10. Accordingly, MAC/2195/2019 is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove and the impugned award is modified to that extent whereas MAC/1979/2019 is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶56

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶57

Harneet

Smt. Rampyari v. Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rampyari v. Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manjula Vs Kishore Rajwde

Laxan Bai Vs Ramadhar Yadav

Smt. Sunita Nirmalkar Vs Dhanraj Rajput

Smt. Kavita Bai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Rakesh Sinha

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Gouri Bai