The High Court allowed the appeal partly, directing the Tribunal to enhance compensation under conventional heads by 10% as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. An additional sum of Rs. 11,000 was ordered over and above the Tribunal award.
Additional/enhanced compensation of Rs. 11,000 to be granted to appellants
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CGHC010077012023
2026:CGHC:40460
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 366 of 2023
1 - Sonafulo Khadiya W/o Dharam Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o Village - Sakri, Police Station - Sakri, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2 - Dharam Singh Khadiya S/o Bhudduram Khadiya Aged About 59 Years R/o Village - Sakri Police Station - Sakri Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 - Chanddeep Mahto S/o Harihar Mahto Aged About 35 Years R/o - Mohjamma Police Station - Farul Disrict - Mujffarpur At Present - Bhilai Transport Nagar, Bhilai (Near Of owner Yashwant Singh S/o Prem Singh), TP Nagar Hathkoj Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 07 B.P. 5655)
2 - Jashwant Singh Proprietor Punjab Roadvage R/o TP Nagar Hathkoj Bhilai, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 07 B.P. 5655)
3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur Police Station - Civil Line Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 07 B.P. 5655)
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.
Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.09.17 10:06:58 +0530
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
(16.09.2026)
1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act of 1988" ) by the appellants/claimants assailing the award dated 29.11.2022 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No.459/2020, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,49,632/- on account of the death of Sheela Khadiya, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.07.2020.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has failed to grant the requisite enhancement of 10% towards the conventional heads, namely loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads deserves suitable enhancement in accordance with the settled principles of law.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions and carefully perused the entire record.
5. Upon perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, aggregating to Rs.1,10,000/- under the
3
conventional heads. Since the accident occurred on 10.07.2020, the claimants are entitled to an enhancement of 10% on the amounts payable under the conventional heads as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Accordingly, the amounts payable towards loss of estate and funeral expenses stand enhanced to Rs.16,500/- each, while the amount payable towards loss of consortium comes to Rs.44,000/-.
6. It is also not in dispute that there are two claimants. Hence, both the claimants shall be entitled towards loss of consortium of Rs.44,000/- each, totalling Rs.88,000/-.
7. Thus, the compensation payable under the conventional heads is recomputed as under:
Loss of Estate : Rs.16,500/Funeral Expenses : Rs.16,500/Loss of Consortium (Rs.44,000/- × 2) : Rs.88,000/Total : Rs.1,21,000/-
8. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,10,000/- under the conventional heads, the appellants become entitled to an additional sum of Rs.11,000/- (1,21,000 – 1,10,000) under the said heads.
9. Consequently, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled to an additional/enhanced compensation of Rs.11,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its actual realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered.
10. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent.
11. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing
4
“the enhanced/additional amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants reside.
Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge
H.L. Sahu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded under conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium) requires an enhancement of 10% as per established jurisprudence.
Whether the claimants are entitled to the enhanced amount for loss of consortium and the consequences of the shortfall in the impugned award.
How the appeal should be disposed of to rectify the non-recalculation of conventional heads compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay SethiApplied¶27
(2017) 16 SCC 680 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sonafulo Khadiya
Dharam Singh Khadiya
Chanddeep Mahto
Jashwant Singh
The New India Insurance Company Limited
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
