Smt. Sakun Bai Vs Devid Kumar Sahu

Smt. Toran Bai W/o Late Brijlal Nirmalkar Aged About 54 Years Appellant No. 2 to 4 Minor through legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sakun Bai, Appellant No.1.

¶11

All permanent Address- Sonbhattha, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon.

¶12

All present R/o. In front of Sita Rice Mill, near Electricity Tower, Jewra Sirsa, Thana Pulgaon, District Durg (CG)

¶13

... Appellant(s)

¶14

versus

¶15

Devid Kumar Sahu S/o Mahesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Batrel, Thana- Ranitarai ............(Driver Cum Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Jailo Car C. G. 04/h. C./6809). .........Driver Owner, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶16

The United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager/ Office (Micro Office) Address- Paras Complex, In Front Of S. B. I. Near Gurudwara, Station Road Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg ..........Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Jailo Car C. G. 04/h. C./6809) ........Insurer, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.07.21 10:28:29 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

For Appellants (s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

09/07/2026

¶24

This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 502/2019 in case of Smt. Sakun Bai & Others Vs. Devid Kumar Sahu & Another.

¶25

The brief facts as reflected from the record are that on 24.04.2019 at about 7.30 PM, Ashok Nirmalkar along with his friend Nuplal were returning to village Sonbhatta from Rajnandgaon on his motorcycle Hero Hond Passion bearing No. CG-04/AJ-7493. At the same time, respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle Jaila Car bearing registration No. CG-04 H.C./6809 rashly and negligently driven the vehicle and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from wrong side, as a result of which, they fell on the road and succumbed to death. It is also case of the claimants that on account of said accident a criminal Case No. 75 of 2019 under Section 304 IPC was registered against the respondent No.1. It is also case of the claimants, that the deceased was 32 years old and he was earning Rs. 10,400/- PM because of unfortunate death of the deceased the claimants have filed the claim case before the tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor vehicle Act.

¶26

The respondent No.1 has filed the written statement denying the fact that he has not dashed anybody and he has been falsely implicated in

¶27

3

¶28

the case. He further submits that the vehicle was driven by the deceased rashly and negligently, as a result of which, he fell on the road and received multiple injuries and succumbed to death. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company/ Respondent No.2, therefore, the liability to pay compensation, if any, would be upon the Insurance Company and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶29

The Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the fact and has stated that the vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident. The Motor cycle was driven by the deceased under intoxicated condition and the accident was caused by the unknown vehicle which is clear from the FIR report itself wherein it has been mentioned that the accident occurred with unknown vehicle. It is further contended that there is breach of policy conditions. Even the offending vehicle was involved in the accident then the deceased was responsible for causing accident under contributory negligence on his part. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶30

Learned Tribunal considering the evidence, material on record has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 10,088/- per month since the deceased was aged about 32 years and accordingly he has applied multiplier of 16 and accordingly calculated the compensation to the

¶31

4

¶32

tune of RS. 21,03,664/ with interest from 13/10/2022 till the actual award is satisfied @ 9 % per annuam. Being aggrieved with the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal. The Appellant/claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the tribunal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the deceased was survived by mother, wife, daughter and two sons, therefore, they are entitled to get consortium as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others in 2018 (18) SCC 130 . He would further submit that claims tribunal without consideration the relevant material on record has taken income of the deceased on lower side, therefore, compensation should have been increased by this Court as per the actual wages which was earning by the deceased at the time of accident. He would further submit that under the heads of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal, which is liable to be enhanced. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced and would pray for enhancement of compensation amount.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance company would submit that learned claims tribunal has not committed any illegality in granting the compensation and it is well settled legal position of law that compensation should be just and proper not a bonanza, therefore,

¶35

5

¶36

award passed by the tribunal does not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court as the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper would pray for dismissal of the appeal. To substantiate her submission, she has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Bhoori bai vs. Gopal Singh reported 2024 Supreme (Online) MP 13295, Smt. Kiran Sharma and others vs. Ramgopal Gurjar (deleted) and others reproted 2025 Supreme (Online) MP 2028 and Smt. P.Vijaya vs. J. Srinivas reported 2025 Supreme (Telangana) 927.

¶37

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

¶38

Submission made by counsel for the claimants is that the compensation has been passed on lower side is being considered by this court. It is not in dispute that the claimants have not placed any documentary prove regarding the earning of the deceased, therefore, learned tribunal has rightly taken into consideration, the minimum wages for skilled labour prevailing at the time of accident i.e. 10,088/-. This finding is neither suffers from any perversity or illegality in absence of any material placed on record by the claimants. Thus assessment of earing of the deceased cannot be found faulty or liable to be modified by this Court.

¶39

Further submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplayer of 18 should have been applied by the claims tribunal is being considered. The learned claims tribunal into consideration the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 32 years has rightly applied the multiplayer of 16. The application of multiplayer 16 by the

¶40

6

¶41

tribunal is in accordance with the law as law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharla Verma (supra) . Thus the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the multiplayer of 18 should be applied is misconceived and according it is rejected.

¶42

Further submission of the counsel for the appellants that consortium has not been passed towards two sons, one daughter and mother of the deceased are concerned, this is against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the issue of consortium and stated as follows:-

¶43

“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9SCC 54].

¶44

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband- wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”.

¶45

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. ..................………………

¶46

7

¶47

The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.

¶48

Considering the above stated legal position, the mother, two sons, and daughter and are entitled to get filial consortium Rs. 40,000/- each with interest of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment is actual made. Thus, the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 21,03,664 + 1,60,000/- which comes to Rs. 22,63,664/- whereas the claim Tribunal has already granted compensation of Rs. 21,03,664/with interest of 9%. As such the claimants are entitled to get additional compensation as awarded by the claims Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till actual payment is made within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶49

The appeal is allowed in part by modifying the award as stated above.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶52

Santosh

Smt. Sakun Bai v. Devid Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sakun Bai v. Devid Kumar Sahu

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

Rajendra Prasad Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rupesh Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vyas Narayan Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pitamber Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandraprakash Batave Vs State of Chhattisgarh