Smt.Jamuna Bai Sone Vs Rajesh Kumar Dangi

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:15575

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 635 of 2019

¶6

HARNEET KAUR

¶7

Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.04.07 11:08:49 +0530 1 - Smt.Jamuna Bai Sone Wd/o Kanhaiya Lal Sone Aged About 34 Years Occupa!on - Housewife, Now Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village - Kansa, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chha/sgarh., District : JanjgirChampa,Chha/sgarh

¶8

2 - Sev! D/o Kanhaiyalal Sone Aged About 19 Years Now Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village - Kansa, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chha/sgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chha/sgarh

¶9

3 - Purnima D/o Late Kanhaiyalal Sone Aged About 17 Years Now Aged About 20 Years, Occupa!on - Student, R/o Village - Kansa, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chha/sgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chha/sgarh

¶10

4 - Ishwar S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Sone Aged About 15 Years Now Aged About 18 Years, Occupa!on - Student, R/o Village - Kansa, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chha/sgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chha/sgarh

¶11

2

¶12

5 - Aghori (Deleted ) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 25-04-2025

¶13

6 - Kar!k W/o Aghori Sone Aged About 60 Years Now Aged About 63 Years, Occupa!on - Dependent, R/o Village - Kansa, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chha/sgarh. (Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chha/sgarh

¶14

... Appellants

¶15

versus

¶16

1 - Rajesh Kumar Dangi S/o Sitaram Dangi Aged About 35 Years Occupa!on - Vehicle Driver, R/o Ratanpur, Post O>ce - Narhar, District Nawada (Bihar) At Present Address - Mbtc Transport Company, House No. 6, Transport Rawbhatha, Bhanpuri, Raipur, District Raipur Chha/sgarh., District : Raipur, Chha/sgarh

¶17

2 - Sanjay Goswani S/o Ramlakhan Goswami Aged About 32 Years Occupa!on - Vehicle Owner, Resident Of Near Durga Mandir, Pota, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chha/sgarh., District : Raipur, Chha/sgarh

¶18

3 - The Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Manager Sai Nagar, Raipur, Above Axis Bank, Jagatpur, Raigarh Chha/sgarh., Chha/sgarh

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Minakshi Gupta on behalf of Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocates For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate

¶21

3

¶22

SB- Hon'ble Shri Jus/ce Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶23

Judgment On Board

¶24

06.04.2026

¶25

1. This appeal under Sec!on 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

¶26

short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensa!on, challenging the impugned award dated 23/08/2018 passed by learned 2^nd Addi!onal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 74/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 11,40,000/- as compensa!on to the appellants/claimants for the death of Kanhaiyalal Sone.

¶27

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that while compu!ng compensa!on, the Claims Tribunal has not granted any sum for future prospect whereas it ought to have granted 40% of the annual income as future prospect. Further ¼^th deduc!on ought to have been made towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd and the Claims Tribunal has also not granted anything under loss of consor!um whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 40,000/- x 4 = Rs. 2,00,000/- under loss of consor!um, as such, the amount of compensa!on may suitably be enhanced.

¶28

4

¶29

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensa!on awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by

¶30

this Court.

¶31

4. I have heard learned counsel for the par!es, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspec!on.

¶32

5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants as well as aHer perusal of the record as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is compu!ng the

¶33

compensa!on as below:-

¶34

Sr.	Heads	Compensa/on	Compensa/on
No.		awarded by the Tribunal	awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 9,000/- x 12 =	Rs. 9,000/- x 12 =
		Rs. 1,08,000/-	Rs. 1,08,000/-
2.	Future Prospect	NIL	(+) 40% i.e.
			Rs. 43,200/- = Rs. 1,51,200/-
3.	Deduc!on	(-) 1/3 = Rs. 72,000/-	(-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 37,800/- = Rs. 1,13,400/-
4.	Mul!plier	(x) 15 =	(x) 15 =
		Rs. 10,80,000/-	Rs. 17,01,000/-
5.	Loss of Consor!um	NIL	Rs. 40,000/- x 4 = Rs. 2,00,000/-
6.	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 10,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-

¶35

5

¶36

7.	Love and AKec!on	Rs. 10,000/- x 5 = NIL
		Rs. 50,000/-
	Total	Rs. 11,40,000/- Rs. 18,71,000/-

¶37

6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensa!on of Rs. 11,40,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 18,71,000/-. Hence, the appellants/claimants are held en!tled for an addi!onal amount of Rs. 7,31,000/- . Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensa!on as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The addi!onal amount of compensa!on shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of Mling of claim applica!on before the Tribunal i.e. 12/07/2016 !ll its realiza!on. Rest of the condi!ons of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶38

7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modiMed to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶39

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶40

Harneet

Smt.Jamuna Bai Sone v. Rajesh Kumar Dangi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Jamuna Bai Sone v. Rajesh Kumar Dangi

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

Puran Singh Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durga Prasad Sahu Vs Ravi Shankar Sahu

Ankit Singh Paikara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhupendra Sahu Vs Ranveer Singh

Smt. Manti Netam Vs Chandakaramu Naidu

Unsound Mind Namely Amit Gupta Vs Kanchan Pandey