Soniya Vs Janki Prasad

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.25 14:28:58 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:16472

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 406 of 2024

¶7

1 - Soniya W/o Late Brijlal Aged About 24 Years Permanent Resident Of Village-Darhora, Police Station-Chandaura, Tahsil-Pratappur, DistrictSurajpur (Cg), At Present Resident Of Village-Datima, Chowki-Karanji, P.S.-Visharampur, District-Surajpur (Cg)

¶8

2 - Priyanshu S/o Late Brijlal, Aged About 1.5 Years, Minor, Represented Through Mother Soniya W/o Late Brijlal Permanent Resident Of Village-Darhora, Police Station-Chandaura, TahsilPratappur, District-Surajpur (Cg), At Present Resident Of VillageDatima, Chowki-Karanji, P.S.-Visharampur, District-Surajpur (Cg)

¶9

3 - Shankar S/o Late Puran , Aged About 46 Years Permanent Resident Of Village-Darhora, Police Station-Chandaura, Tahsil-Pratappur, DistrictSurajpur (Cg), At Present Resident Of Village-Datima, Chowki-Karanji, P.S.-Visharampur, District-Surajpur (Cg)

¶10

4 - Shukwaro W/o Shankar Aged About 40 Years Permanent Resident Of Village-Darhora, Police Station-Chandaura, Tahsil-Pratappur, DistrictSurajpur (Cg), At Present Resident Of Village-Datima, Chowki-Karanji, P.S.-Visharampur, District-Surajpur (Cg)

¶11

5 - Kanilal S/o Shankar, Aged About 22 Years Permanent Resident Of Village-Darhora, Police Station-Chandaura, Tahsil-Pratappur, District-

¶12

2

¶13

Surajpur (Cg), At Present Resident Of Village-Datima, Chowki-Karanji, P.S.-Visharampur, District-Surajpur (Cg)

¶14

... Appellants

¶15

versus

¶16

1 - Janki Prasad S/o Ram Sai, Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Shyamnagar (Khaspara), P.S. Bhatgaon, District-Surajpur (Cg)

¶17

2 - Kalamsai S/o Shobhnath, Aged About 33 Years Resident Of Shyamnagar (Khaspara) P.S. -Bhatgaon,district-Surajpur (Cg)

¶18

3 - Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No. 205, Second Floor, Mm Silver Plaza, Near Mining O昀케ce, Mahaveer Nagar, Ring Road No.1, Raipur (Cg)

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

For Appellants	: Shri Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 & 2	: None despite service

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

09/04/2026

¶24

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) calls in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.30 of 2023.

¶25

2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.17,71,266 on account of death of Brijlal in an accident that occurred on 25.8.2022 by rash and negligent

¶26

3

¶27

driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle Scorpio bearing registration No.CG 29 AE 3652 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

¶28

3. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 25 years. He was working as a labour ( Palledar ) in a warehouse. He was also an agriculturist. He was earning Rs.13,000 per month from the warehouse and Rs.5,000 per month from agriculture, total Rs.18,000 per month. He met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle which resulted into his death. Total compensation of Rs.52,47,000 was claimed.

¶29

4. Respondents No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3/insurance company denied the averments of the claim application. Respondent No.3/insurance company also pleaded that no accident had taken place. The insurance company denied the income of the deceased to be Rs.18,000 per month. Respondent No.1 did not have a valid and e昀昀ective licence to drive the o昀昀ending vehicle. The o昀昀ending vehicle did not have a valid registration. The insurance company also pleaded violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in driving the o昀昀ending vehicle.

¶30

5. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation.

¶31

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was aged about 25 years. He was working as a labour

¶32

4

¶33

( Palledar ) in a warehouse. He was also an agriculturist. He was earning Rs.13,000 per month from the warehouse and Rs.5,000 per month from agriculture, total Rs.18,000 per month. The entire family was dependent upon the income of the deceased. Thus, this Court can safely assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.11,000, which the learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding to Rs.7,000 per month. Learned counsel prays that a suitable enhancement may be made in the compensation.

¶34

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company supports the impugned award. She submits that no documentary evidence is brought on record to support the income of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased rightly and has awarded just compensation. She submits that no interference is warranted.

¶35

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with due care.

¶36

9. According to the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 25 years. He was working as a labour ( Palledar ) in a warehouse. He was also an agriculturist. He was earning Rs.13,000 per month from the warehouse and Rs.5,000 per month from agriculture, total Rs.18,000 per month. There are total 5 dependents shown in the claim application including one minor son of the deceased aged about 1½ years. Considering all aspects of the matter and the evidence available on record, this Court assesses total monthly income of the deceased to Rs.11,000.

¶37

5

¶38

10. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this

¶39

Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner:

¶40

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
1	Annual Income (Rs.11,000 x 12 =)	1,32,000
2	Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,32,000 x 40% Future Prospects = Rs.52,800; Rs.1,32,000 + Rs.52,800 =)	1,84,800
3	Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased	1,38,600
	(Rs.1,84,800 / 4 = Rs.46,200; Rs.1,84,800– Rs.46,200 =)
4	Loss of Dependency after Application of Multiplier (Rs.1,38,600 x 17 =)	23,56,200
5	Funeral Expenses	16,500
6	Loss of Estate	16,500
7	Spousal Consortium to Wife	44,000
8	Parental and Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000 to Minor Son + Rs.40,000 to Father + Rs.40,000 to Mother =)	1,20,000
9	Medical Expenses	1,94,866
	Total Compensation =	27,48,066
(-) Com	pensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal =	17,71,266
	Enhancement in Compensation =	9,76,800

¶41

11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of

¶42

6

¶43

Rs.9,76,800. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of 昀椀ling of the instant appeal, i.e., 27.2.2024 till 昀椀nal payment of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with the interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, Rs.4,00,000 shall be invested in a 昀椀xed deposit in a nationalised bank in the name of appellant No.2/son of the deceased till he attains majority. Rs.4,00,000 shall be invested in a 昀椀xed deposit in the same nationalised bank in the name of appellant No.1/wife of the deceased for a period of 2 years. Rs.50,000 each, total Rs.1,00,000, shall be disbursed to appellant No.3/father of the deceased and appellant No.4/mother of the deceased. Remaining amount shall be disbursed to appellant No.1/wife of the deceased. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶44

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modi昀椀ed to the extent shown above.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

( Sachin Singh Rajput ) JUDGE

¶47

Gopal

Soniya v. Janki Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soniya v. Janki Prasad

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

Smt. Parma Bai Joshi Vs Shivshankar Joshi

Dinesh Kumar Dharmik Vs Bank of India

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Satyendra Singh

Vidyasagar Vikram Singh Vs Smt. Sushitma

Premlal Sahu Vs Mahendra Kumar Sangode