Smt. Manti Netam Vs Chandakaramu Naidu

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:15572

¶3

ASHOK SAHU

¶4

Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.04.06 16:26:32 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 88 of 2019

¶8

1 - Smt. Manti Netam, Wd/o. Late Dhanraj Netam, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Village Sonabeda, Police Station Farasgaon, Tahsil Makadi, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Smt. Sukhbati Netam, W/o. Manarakhan Netam, Aged About 52 Years, R/o. Village Sonabeda, Police Station Farasgaon, Tahsil Makadi, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Deleted (Manrakhan Netam) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 12-092025

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Chandakaramu Naidu, S/o. Tawadu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Bhagirathipuram, B.C. Colony Bodraywalasa, District Vijaynagaram, (A.P.) (Driver Of The Vehicle).

¶14

2 – Ventakrama, S/o. Siddhardha Ventakram, R/o. D.No. 5-87-39/9, Sukku Building Laxmipuram, Main Road, Guntur, District Guntur (A.P.) (Owner Of The Vehicle).

¶15

2

¶16

3 - The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. B.R.III (620901) Dore No.6 -15-31 Third Floor Kubera Tower 15/1 Arun Delept Main Road Guntur (A.P.) Local Office At Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Akashwani Road Above Axis Bank Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh (Insurer)

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

For Appellants : Mr. P.K.Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. N.K.Malaviya, Advocate

¶19

(Single Bench)

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶21

Judgment on Board

¶22

06.04.2026

¶23

The appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the amount under award dated 10.10.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon in Claim Case No.54/2018.

¶24

Mr. P.K.Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the contributory negligence has not been established and no witness has been examined by the insurance company and furthermore, on the other heads also, less amount of compensation has been awarded. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably.

¶25

3

¶26

Mr. N.K.Malaviya, learned counsel for the insurance company/ respondent No.3, would support the impugned award and submit that the appeal preferred by the claimants is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously.

¶28

So far as the contributory negligence is concerned, though the insurance company has taken a plea that the stationery vehicle was dashed by the deceased, but in this behalf no evidence has been adduced. Furthermore, as per the statement of eye-witness Sulo (AW-2), the stationery vehicle/offending vehicle didn’t have the reflectors on, therefore, the plea of contributory negligence is not established and, as such, the appellants are entitled for full compensation.

¶29

Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased Dhanraj Netam to be Rs. 4,500/- per month, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs. 7,930/- per month. Accordingly, this Court is computing the compensation as below:-

¶30

4

¶31

Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
Income as per minimum wages	Rs. 4,500/- per month = Rs. 54,000/- per annum	Rs. 7,930 per month = Rs. 95,160/- per annum
Add future prospects @40%	Rs. 54,000 + 21,600 = Rs. 75,600/-	Rs. 95,160 + 38,064 = = Rs. 1,33,224/-
Deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses	Rs. 75,600 – 25,200 = Rs. 50,400/-	Rs. 1,33,224 – 44,408 = Rs. 88,816/-
Multiplier of 17	Rs. 50,400 x 17 = Rs. 8,56,800/-	Rs. 88,816 x 17 = Rs. 15,09,872/-
Contributory Negligence	50% = Rs. 4,28,400/-	Nil
Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 18,000/-
Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 18,000/-
Love & affection (spousal, filial & parental consortium)	Rs. 40,000/-	Rs. 1,32,000/- (44,000 x 3)
Total	Rs. 4,98,400/-	Rs. 16,77,872/-

¶32

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,98,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 16,77,872/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 4,98,400/- , the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 11,79,472/- . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim

¶33

5

¶34

application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶35

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

¶36

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶37

Ashok

Smt. Manti Netam v. Chandakaramu Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manti Netam v. Chandakaramu Naidu

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

Smt.Jamuna Bai Sone Vs Rajesh Kumar Dangi

Bhupendra Sahu Vs Ranveer Singh

Unsound Mind Namely Amit Gupta Vs Kanchan Pandey