Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Anju Gond vs Rajnath Nagesiya on 17 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:25029
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 998 of 2020
1. Smt. Anju Gond W/o Late Ganesh Ram Gond Aged About 33
Years Occupation House Wife R/o Village Karesar P.S. And
Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Claiment)
... Appellant
versus
1. Rajnath Nagesiya S/o Jitan Ram Nagesiya Aged About 26
Years R/o Village Kantiprakashpur Luchaki (House No. 80
Basorpara), P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja
Chhattisgarh.(Driver And Owner), District : Surguja (
2. The Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd.
Branch Office Ambika Petrol Pump Campus, Near Ambedkar
Chowk Banaras Road Ambikapur District Surguja
Chhattisgarh. Pin No. 492001,
3. Ramsai S/o Late Heduva Aged About 65 Years Occupation
Agriculture, R/o Village Karesar P.S. And Tahsil Lundra
District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Bhondi Devi W/o Ramsai Aged About 60 Years
Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Karesar P.S. And Tahsil
Lundra District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer).
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Aakancha Vishwakarma, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 & 4: Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate
2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
17/06/2025
1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal challenging the award
dated 7.2.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Ambikapur District Surguja (for short ‘the Claims
Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.123/2019 by which learned
Claims Tribunal allowed application of appellant in part and
awarded total compensation of Rs.12,35,794/- to
claimant/appellant herein, in a death case.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant filed an
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune
of Rs.25,10,064/- under various heads, for untimely death of
deceased Ganesh Ram in a motor vehicular accident.
According to claimant, who is widow of deceased, on
1.1.2019 at about 7:00 p.m. Ganesh Ram along with his
friend was going towards village Raghunathpur from village
Karesar, at that time near a rice mill situated in village
Batwari, the motorcycle bearing CG15-DK-2655, which was
driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed
their motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident,
Ganesh Ram sustained grievous injuries. Ganesh Ram died
on 25.1.2019 while undergoing treatment.
3. Driver-cum-owner of offending motorcycle filed reply denying
3
allegation of negligent driving and pleading that deceased
himself was responsible for the accident. Insurance Company
also filed a separate reply and took a stand that rider of
offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, insurance
company is not liable to pay the compensation.
4. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the pleadings and
evidence brought on record by the parties, came to the
conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of motorcycle by non-applicant No.1 which resulted in
death of deceased during course of treatment; disbelieved the
version of claimants that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-
per month by running a grocery shop and doing agriculture
work, recording that claimant failed to prove the employment
and income of deceased by any documentary evidence in that
regard. It was also held that there was no violation of any of
the conditions of insurance policy. Consequently, the Claims
Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded compensation of
Rs.12,35,794/- and fastened liability upon the Insurance
Company to satisfy the award.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that
income of the deceased has not been properly assessed by
the Claims Tribunal and compensation under the head of
future prospects has also not been granted to the appellant.
4
He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not
awarding amount towards loss of consortium to all the dependent
family members of deceased. Therefore amount of compensation
awarded by learned Tribunal be suitably enhanced.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.3 supporting the award passed by the Claims
Tribunal has submitted that the compensation awarded by the
Claims Tribunal is just and proper.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused record of claim case including impugned award.
8. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Claims
Tribunal has assessed income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per
month only, which is not just and proper. The accident
occurred on 1.1.2019 and deceased was resident of District
Surguja, which comes within the category of ‘C’ Grade,
therefore, considering the minimum wage rate prescribed by
the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
for an unskilled labour Zone ‘C’ category, for the relevant
period, monthly income of deceased is fixed as Rs.7800/-.
9. It is appearing from the award that the Claims Tribunal has
not awarded any amount towards future prospects. The
Claims Tribunal has taken age of deceased as 32 years on
the basis of postmortem report, therefore, as per decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance
5
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the
claimant is entitled for future prospects @ 40%. It is ordered
accordingly.
10. Deduction one-third made towards personal expenses of the
deceased and multiplier of 16 applied by the Claims Tribunal
is as per law settled in this regard and need no interference.
As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma
General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru
Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the parents are also
entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head ‘filial
Consortium’. In case at hand, the Claims Tribunal has
awarded only Rs.40,000/- to the widow of deceased towards
loss of spousal consortium and not awarded any amount
towards loss of filial consortium to non-applicant No.3 and 4,
who are parents of deceased. Accordingly, it is ordered that
the non-applicant No.3 and 4 would be entitled for a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium.
11. In the accident, deceased sustained grievous injury on head
with contusion on right temporal region as also fracture of
right temporal bone. After the accident, the deceased took
treatment in different hospitals including Super Specialty
Hospital, Raipur. He died on 25.1.2019. Thus, the deceased
must have spent considerable amount in transportation and
attendant for going Raipur from Ambikapur for treatment.
6
Considering this fact, I find it appropriate to award a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and attendant. It is
ordered accordingly.
12. As against the total claim of Rs.6,00,00/-, the Claims Tribunal
has awarded Rs.3,59,394/- towards medical expenses.
Learned counsel for appellant failed to point as to which
medical bill was not considered and paid by the Claims
Tribunal. In absence of any specific submission with respect
to non-award of any particular bill, submission of learned
counsel for appellant that the entire medical claim has not
been considered and awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not
sustainable and it is hereby repelled.
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.7800/- per
month and after adding 40% towards future prospects,
monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.10,920/- and
annual income would be Rs.1,31,400/-. Out of this amount,
one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses of deceased, as held above, and after deducting
one-third, annual loss of dependency would come to
Rs.87,360/-. Applying multiplier of 16, as applied by Claims
Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.13,97,760/-
(87360×16). Besides this, appellant-wife is entitled for a sum
7
of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; respondents No.3
and 4 being parents of deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/-
each for loss of filial consortium, as held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matters of 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. Appellant is also entitled for
Rs.3,59,394/- as awarded by Claims Tribunal towards
medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- for transportation and
attendant, as awarded by this Court. Thus, total amount of
compensation comes to Rs.19,22,154/- This amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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 from the amount of
compensation as awarded above.
15.In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part and the
impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated
SYED
ROSHAN above.
ZAMIR ALI
Digitally
signed by Sd/-
SYED ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-