Dhan Singh Vs Bhagwat

¶1

1

2026:CGHC:19733

AMITA DUBEY

NAFR

Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.04 18:03:36 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 43 of 2023

¶8

1 - Dhan Singh S/o Mangalu Ram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Kusumkheda, Police Station And Tahsil Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sumitra Bai W/o Dhan Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Kusumkheda, Police Station And Tahsil Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Sangita D/o Dhan Singh Aged About 8 Years Appellant No.03 Is Minor Through The Father (Natural Guardian) Dhan Singh, R/o Village Kusumkheda, Police Station And Tahsil Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Bhagwat S/o Mohit Ram Nirmalkar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ghundukapa, Police Station Jarhagaon, Post Semarsal, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle).

¶12

2 - Mangal Singh S/o Hari Singh Dhruw Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Semarsal, Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle).

¶13

3 - Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- 4th Floor, Gwalani Chamber, Office No. T-08, Vyapar Vihar, Main Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle).

¶14

... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents : None present No. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. : Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate. 3

¶15

2

¶16

(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

27/04/2026

¶19

Challenge in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth, “MV Act, 1988”) is to an award dated 28^th September, 2022 passed by First Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, CG (for short, “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 595 of 2021.

¶20

By the impugned award, against claim of Rs. 35,00,000/- claimed by unfortunate father, mother and sister of deceased Ku. Kavita Gadhewal by filing application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’), the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,89,632/as compensation along with interest @ 7.5 percent per annum in favour of the claimants on account of her death in the motor accident that occurred on 01.07.2020 due to rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 28 J. 9547 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.

¶21

As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, the deceased met with an accident that occurred on 01.07.2020 due to rash & negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Motorcycle, as a result thereof, she sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, she was taken to Primary Health Centre, Kenda, CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur and then MEKAHARA Hospital, Raipur and ultimately during the course of treatment, she died on 09.07.2020. Claimants have further pleaded in the claim application that at the time of incident, deceased Ku. Kavita Gadhewal was 18 years old and she

¶22

3

¶23

used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by doing sewing and embroidery work at home.

¶24

The claim application was resisted by the respective respondents on various counts including Insurance Company taking a plea of violation of terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy.

¶25

The Tribunal has framed issues and on assessment of the evidence available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded aforesaid compensation in favour of the appellants/claimants.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,860/- per month, as deceased Ku. Kavita Gadhewal was 18 years old at the time of incident and she used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by doing sewing and embroidery work at home. As such, amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may be enhanced suitably.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 while opposing the submissions made by counsel for the appellants would submit that the since no documentary evidence has been adduced by the claimants regarding the actual income of the deceased, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8,860/-, which does not require any interference in this appeal, hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

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

¶29

As per pleading made by the claimants in the claim application, at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 18 years she used to earn

¶30

4

¶31

Rs. 15,000/- per month by sewing and embroidery work at home, but no documentary proof has been adduced by the claimants to substantiate the income of the deceased.

¶32

Learned Claims Tribunal, on the basis of minimum wages prescribed by the Labour Commissioner's Office, Raipur for the unskilled labor , has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8,860/-. Further, the claims Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income of deceased towards his personal expenses and added 40% on it towards future prospect and found yearly dependency of Rs. 74,424/-, looking to the age of deceased as 19 years Tribunal has applied multiplier of 18 and has awarded Rs. 13,39,632 on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,20,000/- towards loss of filial consortium and thus has awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,89,632/-, which, taking into consideration the evidence and other material available on record can not be said to be on lower side warranting interference of this court in the instant appeal.

¶33

Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No costs.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶36

Ami

Dhan Singh v. Bhagwat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhan Singh v. Bhagwat

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

Loknath Sahu @ Loku Vs Prem Bai Dhruv

Chandrakali Vs Santosh Kumar

Smt. Rekha Banjare Vs Naresh Kumar

Sabita Devi Vs Kamesh Uraon

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rakesh Mandal

Sunil Baghel Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.