Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sondulari Sahu vs Uttam Kumar Singh Yadav on 11 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:23128
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 355 of 2020
1. Smt. Sondulari Sahu Wd/o Late Jageshwar Sahu Aged About
28 Years
2. Ku. Divya Sahu (Minor) D/o Late Jageshwar Sahu Aged
About 6 Years
3. Krishna Kumar (Minor) S/o Jageshwar Sahu Aged About 3
Years
4. Narayan Sahu S/o Manhar Sahu Aged About 58 Years
5. Dashoda Sahu W/o Narayan Sahu Aged About 50 Years
All R/o Village Bareli, Chowki Giroudhpuri, Tahsil - Bilaigarh,
District (Revenue And Civil) - Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.
Appellant No.2 & 3 minor, through the mother (natural
guardian) appellant No.1, Smt. Sondulari Sahu Wd/o Late
Jageshwar Sahu Aged About 28 Years
... Appellants/applicants
versus
1. Uttam Kumar Singh Yadav S/o Shivnath @ Harikrishna Singh
Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Masudi, Police
Station - Tashil - Jagdishpur, P.O. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur
Aara (Bihar) At Present - Vedvyas Ward No. 03 Kalunga,
Police Station - Kalunga, District - Sundargarh (Odisa),
(Driver Of Truck Bearing Vehicle No. O.D. - 14- N - 7723)
2. Jai Maa Sheetala Transport Proprietor Dhirendra Diwakar S/o
Nagendra Diwakar Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village -
2
Kalunga, District Sundergarh Ward No. 03 Police Station -
Kalunga (Odisa), (Owner Of Vehicle No. O.D. -14 - N- 7723),
District : Sundargarh, Orissa
3. Dhirendra Diwakar S/o Nagendra Diwakar Aged About 45
Years R/o Village - Kalunga, District Sundergarh Ward No. 03
Police Station - Kalunga (Odisa), (Supurddar Of Vehicle No.
O.D. -14 - N- 7723), District : Sundargarh, Orissa
4. Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company
Limited Raurkela District - Raurkela(Odissa) Pin Code - 7723
Branch Office - 3rd Floor Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar
Road ( Sai Nagar Raipur) A. O. C. G. Pin Code 492001
(Insurer Of The Vehicle Bearing Vehicle No. O.D. -14 - N-
7723)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Shokie Yadav, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
11/06/2025
1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the
award dated 22.8.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in
Claim Case No.104/2018 by which learned Claims Tribunal
allowed application of appellants in part and awarded total
compensation of Rs.16,32,800/- to claimant/appellants herein.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellants filed an
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune
3
of Rs.36,00,000/- under various heads, for the death of
deceased Jageshwar Sahu in a motor vehicular accident.
According to claimants, who are widow, children and mother
of deceased, on 19.6.2018 at about 4:15 p.m. Jageshwar
Sahu along with his daughter Divya Sahu was going to
Raigarh on his motorcycle. On the way, opposite Singh Petrol
Pump, village Kodatarai, truck bearing registration mark
OD14-N-7723, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-
applicant No.1, dashed the motorcycle and caused accident.
In the said accident, Jageshwar Sahu sustained grievous
injuries on his dead and died on spot.
3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed reply to application denying
averments made therein including negligence alleged against
non-applicant No.1. They also pleaded that on the date of
alleged accident, non-applicant No.1 was having valid and
effective driving license, the offending vehicle was insured
with non-applicant-Insurance company, therefore, if any
compensation is awarded then insurance company is liable to
make payment of the same.
4. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its reply
specifically denying averments made in claim application. It
was pleaded that the deceased himself was responsible for
the accident and therefore principle of contributory negligence
is attracted. At the time of accident, driver of offending
4
vehicle was not possessing valid license and as such, there
was violation of condition of insurance policy and therefore,
the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.
5. Upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence brought on
record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties,
the Claims Tribunal arrived at conclusion that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by non-applicant No.1; there was no element of
contributory negligence. The Claims Tribunal has allowed the
application in part, awarded total compensation of
Rs.16,32,800/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. and since it
was not found that the offending vehicle was plied on road in
violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy, the
Insurance Company has been held liable to satisfy the
impugned award.
6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Claims
Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as
Rs.8000/- per month ignoring the pleading made in application
that deceased was working as Salesman in M/s Premchand
Ramesh Kumar, a proprietary concern dealing in gifts and
plastic articles, and getting Rs.13,500/- per month as salary.
Document showing registration of proprietary concern with
Commercial Tax Department as also Municipal Corporation,
Raigarh under the Shop and Establishment Act, 1958 have
5
been produced. A certificate to the effect that deceased was
getting Rs.13,500/- from the said concern is also submitted.
Claimants have also examined Sunny Agrawal (PW-2) and
Ramesh Kumar Agrawal (PW-3) to prove the fact that
deceased was working as a Salesman in M/s Premchand
Ramesh Kumar, Raigarh. He next contended that amount
awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards loss of consortium is
not in accordance with law. Hence, he prays that amount of
compensation be enhanced suitably.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposing the
submissions made by learned counsel for appellants, submits
that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of material
available in record, has rightly come to the conclusion that
claimants failed to prove occupation and income of deceased
by adducing cogent and clinching documentary evidence and
being so, fixation of income of deceased on notional basis
cannot be said to be erroneous.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Appellants-claimants have pleaded in application that
deceased was working as Salesman with M/s Premchand
Ramesh Kumar, Raigarh and getting salary of Rs.13500/- per
month. In order to prove said pleadings, they have examined
Sunny Agrawal (PW-2) and Ramesh Kumar Agrawal (PW-3).
Sunny Agrawal (PW-2) is the nephew of Smt. Kusum Devi
6
Agrawal, who is proprietor of M/s Premchand Ramesh Kumar,
Raigarh, and he has stated that a sum of Rs.13500/- was
being paid by his firm to the deceased every month. Ramesh
Kumar Agrawal (PW-3), husband of Smt. Kusum Devi Agrawal,
has stated that M/s Premchand Ramesh Kumar, Raigarh is
registered in the name of his wife Smt. Kusum Devi Agrawal.
Prior to 7-8 years of his death, deceased had been working in
their firm as a Salesman and salary of Rs.13500/- per month
was being paid to him. Claimants have also placed on record a
salary certificate (Ex.A-25) issued by Smt. Kusum Devi
Agrawal, Proprietor of M/s Premchand Ramesh Kumar,
Raigarh certifying that salary of deceased was Rs.13,500/- per
month. Registration certificate issued by Municipal
Corporation, Raigarh under the Shop and Establishment Act
and certificate with TIN number issued in Form-6 by the
Commercial Tax Department are also placed on record as
Ex.A-A26-C and Ex.A27-C respectively.
10. Above oral and documentary evidence available in record
clearly depict that the deceased was working as a Salesman in
M/s Premchand Ramesh Kumar, Raigarh and his monthly
income was Rs.13,500/-. The Claims Tribunal erred in
assessing income of deceased on notional basis by
disbelieving the evidence with regard to nature of employment
and income. The Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed
7
income of the deceased at Rs.13500/- in stead of Rs.8000/-,
which is contrary to the evidence available in record. Hence,
the income of deceased is hereby assessed as Rs.13,500/-.
11. The deceased was below 40 years and not in permanent job,
therefore, addition of 40% of assessed income towards future
prospects applied by the Claims Tribunal is in consonance with
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi
(supra). In view of the fact that the deceased was survived by
five dependent family members, the Claims Tribunal has
rightly deducted one-fourth from the income of deceased to
assess loss of dependency. Deceased was survived by five
dependent family members and therefore, multiplier applied by
the Claims Tribunal i.e. 16, is also in consonance with the
principles laid down in the matter of Sarla Verma vs Delhi
Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121 wherein it is observed that the deduction towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-fourth
where the number of dependent family is 4 to 6.
12. The Claims Tribunal has awarded consortium only to widow of
deceased i.e. appellant No.1. Whereas, as per decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi reported in (2107) 16 SCC 680 and
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130, the children and parents
8
of deceased are separately entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-
for loss of parental consortium and filial consortium
respectively. Therefore the Claims Tribunal should have
awarded separate consortium to each appellant herein,
meaning thereby should have awarded Rs.2,00,000/- in place
of Rs.40,000/- only. Consequently, it is ordered that the
appellants, who are widow, children and mother of deceased,
total five in number, are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each
i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- towards spousal consortium, parental
consortium and filial consortium respectively.
13. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount
of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.
14.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.13,500/- per
month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, the
monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.18900/- and
annual income would be Rs.2,26,800/-. Out of this amount,
one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses of deceased and after deducting one-fourth and
applying multiplier of 16, as applied by the Claims Tribunal,
total loss of dependency would come to Rs.27,21,600/-.
Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 to 4
are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for parental consortium and
appellant No.5 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for filial consortium,
9
as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay
Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). In
addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to
get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of
compensation comes to Rs.29,51,600/- (27,21,600 +
2,00,000 + 30000). This amount of compensation shall carry
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till actual
payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the
impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed
to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted.
15.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Sd/- Digitally signed by SYED (Parth Prateem Sahu) ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Judge roshan/-