Smt. Anita Singh Vs Harish Kumar Baghel

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.01.15 10:45:23 +0530

1

2026:CGHC:2176

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 869 of 2020

¶7

1. Smt. Anita Singh W/o Late Dayanand Singh Aged About 44 Years Caste Rajput, R/o Gujrati Colony, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. Samrat Singh S/o Late Dayanand Singh Aged About 22 Years Caste Rajput, R/o Gujrati Colony, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1. Harish Kumar Baghel S/o Devraj Singh Baghel Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kurela, Police Station Vijaygarh, District Aligarh Uttar Pradesh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle), District : Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh

¶12

2. Rajesh Choudhri S/o Amar Singh Choudhri R/o Bazar Sector Twenseng Town, Nagaland. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle), District : Tuensang, Nagaland

¶13

3. Manager Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited , Mahil Manzil B-7, Shri Ram Nagar , T.V. Tower Road, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

	... Respondent(s)
For Appellants :	Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 :	Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Judgment On Board

¶17

2

¶18

14.1.2026

¶19

1) With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.

¶20

2) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ claimant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Claim Case No. 136/2018 dated 18.2.2020 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 31,13,415/- with interest @ 6% on account of death of Vikram Singh.

¶21

3) Facts of the present case are that on the intervening night of 2324.12.2017 at about 12:00 am, Vikram Singh while driving his motorcycle rammed into a stationary truck bearing registration No. NL-03-A-3188. In the accident, Vikram Singh sustained grievous injuries and died during course of treatment. Claimants who are mother and younger brother of the deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,30,000/-. They pleaded that the deceased who was aged 24 years owned a restaurant and used to earn Rs. 25,000-30,000/per month. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed.

¶22

4) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium to the mother of the deceased and separate compensation towards loss of consortium has not been awarded in favor of the younger

¶23

3

¶24

brother of the deceased. He further submits that no separate compensation has been awarded towards loss of estate. He prays to modify the award accordingly.

¶25

5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶27

7) Perusal of the record would indicate that learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of income tax returns (ITR) filed by him in previous years ; deducted 50% dependency towards personal expenses ; granted additional 40% towards future prospects and applied multiplier of 18 looking to the age of the deceased. Thus, finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to income requires no interference. However, learned Tribunal committed error of law in not awarding any compensation towards loss of estate and awarding a meager sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium.

¶28

8) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:

¶29

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	^{Compensation awarded} by this Court
1.	Annual Income	Rs. 2,57,850/-	Rs. 2,57,850/-

¶30

4

¶31

2.	Annual Income adding Future Prospect	Rs. 3,60,990/- (@40%)	Rs. 3,60,990/- (@40%)
3.	Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses	Rs. 1,80,485/- (@1/2)	Rs. 1,80,485/- (@1/2)
4.	Annual Income after applying Multiplier	Rs. 30,68,415/- (@17)	Rs. 30,68,415/- (@17)
5.	Loss of Estate	NIL	Rs. 18,000/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 30,000/-	Rs. 96,000/- (two claimants)
	TOTAL	Rs. 31,13,415/-	Rs. 31,97,415/-

¶32

9) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 31,13,415/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 31,97,415/- . Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 84,000/- . The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact.

¶33

10) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned

¶34

award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶37

A j i n k y a

Smt. Anita Singh v. Harish Kumar Baghel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anita Singh v. Harish Kumar Baghel

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

Deleted (Ram Pyare Sahu) Vs Deleted (Bishambhar Prasad)

Pahalwan Singh Vs Vedbhuvan Pottam

Smt. Pramila Bai Vs Sonuram Netam

Smt. Puniya Bai Vs Santosh Giri

Tata a. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rama Kadam

Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh