Partly allowed

Ku. Jagriti Sahu v. Santosh Uraon

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026MAC/996/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 sought enhancement of compensation for a motor accident death. The Court enhanced the award from approx. Rs. 18 lakh to Rs. 21.76 lakh by adjusting the deceased's monthly income and the multiplier applied.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 21,76,608/- with an additional Rs. 3,72,008/- carrying interest at 6% per annum.

Ku. Jagriti Sahu Vs Santosh Uraon — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010143222026

¶3

Digitally
BHOLA signed byBHOLANATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:2026.09.16
17:03:21
+0530

¶4

2026:CGHC:40433

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 996 of 2026

¶8

1 - Ku. Jagriti Sahu D/o Late Daneshwar Sahu Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Grand Father Balram Sahu R/o Village- Jaraud, Post Office- Farfaud Police Station Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

2 - Balram Sahu S/o Ruguram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o. Village- Jaraud, Post Office- Farfaud ,police Station- Aarang, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

3 - Lila Bai Sahu W/o Balram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village- Jaraud, Post Office- Farfaud, Police Station- Aarang District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Santosh Uraon S/o Late Rajkumar Uraon Aged About 39 Years R/o. Address-1, Village- Tekari, (P.G. Enterprises) Police Station Vidhansabha, District- Raipur (C.G.) Address-2 Through Rahul Sharma S/o. Laxmikant Sharma, Aged About 38 Years R/o. U-18 Dubey Colony, Mova Police Station-Mova DistrictRaipur (C.G.) (Driver Of Truck No. CG 04-JA-9252)

¶14

2 - Rahul Sharma S/o. Laxmikant Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o. U-18, Dubey Colony, Mova Police Station- Mova, DistrictRaipur (C.G.) (Owner Of Truck No. CG-04-JA-9252)

¶15

3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager (Division No.-1), United India Insurance Company

¶16

¶17

Limited Krishana Complex Kachari Chowk Raipur, Jail Road Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Truck No. CG-04-JA-9252)

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Appellants : Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. A. V. Deshmukh, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶21

(16.09.2026)

¶22

1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that liability has been fastened upon respondent No.3–Insurance Company and the appellants have confined their challenge to the quantum of compensation. Hence, notice to respondents No.1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, is not required. Accordingly, an oral prayer is made to dispense with notice to respondents No.1 and 2.

¶23

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3–Insurance Company has no objection to the prayer so made.

¶24

3. Accordingly, the oral prayer made on behalf of the appellants is allowed and notice to respondents No.1 and 2 stands dispensed with.

¶25

4. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the appellants and respondent No.3–Insurance Company, the matter was heard finally.

¶26

5. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) vide impugned

¶27

¶28

award dated 28.01.2026 passed in Claim Case No.678/2024, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹18,04,600/- as compensation on account of the death of Hina Sahu, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 24.04.2024.

¶29

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at 9,000/-,₹ which is even below the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled labourer at the relevant time. He further submits that although the Claims Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 23 years on the date of the accident, it has erroneously applied the multiplier of 17, whereas, in view of her age, the appropriate multiplier would be 18. It is also submitted that no amount has been awarded towards loss of consortium to appellants No.2 & 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced.

¶30

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3– Insurance Company opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants/claimants and submits that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶31

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with due circumspection.

¶32

9. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, it has been pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was earning 9,000/- per month by working as a tailor and that,₹

¶33

¶34

in future, she would have earned 12,000/- per month.₹ However, no documentary evidence has been adduced on record to establish the actual income of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal, having regard to the material available on record, assessed her monthly income at ₹9,000/-. The accident occurred on 24.04.2024 and, at the relevant time, the minimum wages prescribed even for an unskilled labourer were 10,380/- per month. Considering the nature₹ of work and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that her monthly income deserves to be reassessed at 10,380/-. Accordingly, her annual income₹ comes to 1,24,560/-.₹

¶35

10. As regards the multiplier, on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged about 23 years, which fact has also been accepted by the Claims Tribunal. In terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. , the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of 21 to 25 years is 18. Thus, the multiplier of 17 applied by the Claims Tribunal is substituted by the multiplier of 18.

¶36

11. The deceased was a non-salaried person. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium to appellants No.2 and 3 as they are the fatherin-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.

¶37

12. Considering the date of the accident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the addition towards future prospects and the deduction towards personal expenses made by the Claims Tribunal are just and proper and do not warrant interference.

¶38

13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the principles

¶39

¶40

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi¹ , Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors² and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors³ , the compensation payable to the claimants is recomputed as under:

¶41

Sl.	Heads	Compensation	Compensation
No.		awarded by the Tribunal	awarded by this Court
1	Income	9000 x 12 = 1,08,000	10,380 x 12 =1,24,560
2.	Future prospects	(+)40% (i.e.43200) = 151200	(+)40% (i.e. 49824) = 1,74,384
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/3 (i.e. 50400) =100800	(-)1/3 (i.e. 58128)= 1,16,256
4.	Multiplier	(x)17 = 1713600	(x)18 = 20,92,608
5.	Funeral Expenses	19,500	18,000
6.	Loss of estate	19,500	18,000
7.	Loss of consortium	52,000	48,000
	Total	Rs. 18,04,600/-	Rs. 21,76,608/-

¶42

14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the compensation of ₹18,04,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹21,76,608/-. Thus, after deducting the amount of ₹18,04,600/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant(s) shall be entitled to an additional/enhanced amount of ₹3,72,008/- . The additional/enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its actual realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered.

¶43

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶44

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶45

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶46

¶47

15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed . The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶48

16. The Registry is directed to communicate to the claimants, in writing, the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court in the present appeal over and above the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Such communication shall be made in Hindi (Devanagari script). For this purpose, the assistance of Para-Legal Volunteers may be availed with the coordination of the Secretary, Legal Services Authority of the concerned area where the claimants reside.

¶49

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶50

Khatai

Ku. Jagriti Sahu v. Santosh Uraon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Jagriti Sahu v. Santosh Uraon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases