Smt. Manju Chandravanshi Vs Jitendra Kumar Verma

¶1

-1-

¶2

2026:CGHC:6998

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 295 of 2023

¶5

1 - Smt. Manju Chandravanshi W/o Late Mahendra Chandravanshi Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post Indauri, Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶6

2 - Shashwat Chandravanshi S/o Late Mahendra Chandravanshi Aged About 8 Years Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Manju Chandravanshi, R/o Village And Post Indauri, Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶7

3 - Shavya Chandravanshi D/o Late Mahendra Chandravanshi Aged About 4 Years Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Manju Chandravanshi, R/o Village And Post Indauri, Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶8

4 - Nand Kumar Chandravanshi S/o Ghurau Chandravanshi Aged About 53 Years R/o Village And Post Indauri, Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶9

5 - Nandni Chandravanshi W/o Nandkumar Chandravanshi Aged About 51 Years R/o Village And Post Indauri, Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Jitendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Madmada, Police Station Pandatarai, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶13

2 - Tukaram Verma S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Verma Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. Lig-702, Sector-04, Housing Board Colony Saddu, Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

3 - Branch Manager Chola Mandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, In Front Of Bhartiya Jeevam Bima Bhavan, Pandri Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Appellants/Claimants	: Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate
For respondent No.3/Insurance	: Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate holding the
Company	brief of Ms. Astha Shukla, Adv.
For other respondents	: None appears though served

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

09.02.2026

¶19

-2-

¶20

1. Heard on I.A. No.1, an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

¶21

1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that this appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation with a delay of 104 days. He would further submit that sufficient cause has been shown in the application. He would pray to condone the delay.

¶22

1. On the other hand, Ms. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose.

¶23

1. Heard.

¶24

1. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Sahu and reasons assigned in the application, I.A.No.1 is hereby allowed and delay of 104 days caused in filing appeal is hereby condoned.

¶25

1. The appeal is admitted for hearing.

¶26

1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

¶27

1. The appellants/claimants have challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned 10^th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.1211/2021 dated 10.08.2022 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.26,24,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Mahendra Chandravanshi in a motor accident.

¶28

-3-

¶29

1. The facts in brief are that on 28.02.2021 at around 10:30 a.m. when deceased was going to Village Dullapur on his motorcycle, driver of the offending car bearing registration No.C.G.04-LS/7875 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the bike, resultantly, Mahendra Chandravanshi sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death during course of treatment.

¶30

1. The claimants who are widow, two minor children and parents of deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein, they pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 40 years and earning Rs.50,000/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs.2,52,00,000/-.

¶31

11)The Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. It was also pleaded that the rider of the motorbike was negligent. Learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence and thereafter, award was passed.

¶32

1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased Rs.14,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would further submit that the deceased was a Principal in Saraswati Shishu Mandir Indori Thana Pipariya and earning Rs.30,000/- per month; he was also earning Rs.20,000/- by providing tuition and Rs.50,000/- from his

¶33

-4-

¶34

electronic shop. He would contend that though the claimants proved income of deceased by leading cogent evidence but the learned Tribunal discarded those evidence and assessed his income Rs.14,000/- per month. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has granted meager amount against conventional heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶35

1. On the other hand, Ms. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sahu. She would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

1. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶37

1. Admittedly, the deceased met with an accident on 28.02.2021. An FIR was lodged on 1^st of March, 2021 vide Ex.P/2. The deceased was taken to hospital and during course of treatment, he died. The claimants produced salary register of Saraswati Shishu Mandir Indori to demonstrate that the deceased was earning Rs.13,570/- per month. The claimants examined Smt. Manju Chandravanshi who exhibited the documents and stated that her husband was earning Rs.30,000/- from school; Rs.20,000/- from tuition fee and Rs.50,000/from electronic shop. In cross-examination, this witness admitted the

¶38

-5-

¶39

fact that with regard to income, she could not adduce documentary evidence.

¶40

1. Tupeshwar Chandravanshi (AW2) was an eyewitness to the accident.

¶41

1. Badri Giri Goswami (AW3) a teacher of Saraswati Shishu Mandir Indori proved the salary register vide Ex.P/15-C. With regard to income from providing tuition and electronic shop, the claimants could not adduce documentary evidence, therefore, learned Tribunal assessed income of deceased Rs.14,000/- per month which appears to be just and proper.

¶42

1. Learned Tribunal deducted 1/4th for personal and living expenses of the deceased looking to the number of claimants and applied multiplier of 15. Learned Tribunal further granted compensation for funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-; loss of estate Rs.16,500/-; loss of consortium Rs.44,000/- to each of the claimants and also granted future prospects 25%.

¶43

1. It appears that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation to the claimants and in my opinion, there is no scope of interference. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed . Sd/-

¶44

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶45

Rekha

Smt. Manju Chandravanshi v. Jitendra Kumar Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju Chandravanshi v. Jitendra Kumar Verma

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

Smt. Shanti Harijan Vs Chaitanya Kumbhar

Smt. Jhamit Bai Vs Santosh Kumar

Vivek Sharma Vs Hitesh Sharma

Smt. Santoshi Maravi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Uday Mudliar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh