Chattisgarh High Court
Bhagwanta vs Ramprasad Sonwani on 16 September, 2025
-1-
2025:CGHC:47589
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 457 of 2020
1 - Bhagwanta S/o Laindas Baghel Aged About 44 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village
Chandeli, P.S. Pathariya, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Urmila Baghel W/o Bhagwanta Aged About 44 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village
Chandeli, P.S. Pathariya, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Khushabu Baghel D/o Late Rakesh Baghel Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal
Natural Guardian Grand Father Bhagwanta, Son Of Laindas Baghel, Resident Of Village
Chandeli, P.S. Pathariya, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 - Ramprasad Sonwani S/o Bharat Lal Sonwani Aged About 32 Years R/o Kunda, P.S.
Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending
Vehicle Pick Up Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10c/9722), District : Kawardha
(Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
2 - Goverdhan Prasad Sahu S/o H.R. Sahu R/o Bandhwapara, Chhatan Mungeli, District
Mungeli, C.G. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Pick Up Bearing Registration No. C.G.
10c/9722), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
3 - Lumbard General Insurance Company Ltd. (Icic Bank) Vadijiyak Bhawan Devendra
Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 &2 : None appears For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board -2- 16.09.2025
1) Heard.
2) This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the award dated 25.11.2016, passed in Claim Case No.54 of 2014 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), whereby learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim application and awarded sum of Rs.7,30,500/- on account of death of Rakesh Baghel.
3) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.4000/- per month, which should be Rs.5468/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for future prospect, whereas, the age of the deceased at the time of death was 24 years. He would also submit that learned Tribunal has not passed any award on the head of loss of consortium to the appellants/claimants, funeral expenses and loss of estate. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.
4) On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sahu. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has justified in assessing compensation on notional basis and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. He would further submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
-3-
5) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
6) In the instant case, admittedly, learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, since the deceased was working as Manson, therefore, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.5468/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospect, loss of consortium and awarded meager amount for funeral expenses and loss of estate, thus, the award requires recomputation.
7) Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018(18) SCC 130, this Court is computing the compensation as below :
-4-
Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Compensation awarded Tribunal by this Court
1. Income Rs. 4,000 x12 = Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 5468 x 12 = Rs.
65616/-
2. Deduction (-) 1/3 Rs. 16,000/- = (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs. 21872) 65616 - 21872 Rs. 32,000/-
= 43744/-
3. Future Prospect NIL 40% i.e. Rs.17498/-
43,744 + 17498 = 61242/-
4. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs. 5,76,000/- (x) 18 61242 x 18 = Rs. 11,02,356/-
5. Other heads Loss of Consortium loss of Consortium 50,000 x 3 = for claimants No.1 to 1,50,000/- 3= 48000 x 3 = 1,44,000/-
6. Funeral expenses Rs. 2000/- Rs. 15,000/-
7. Loss of Estate Rs. 25,00/- Rs. 15,000/-
8. Total Rs. 7,30,500/- Rs. 12,76,356/-
8) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.7,30,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,76,356/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,30,500/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,45,856/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of condonation of delay i.e. 02.09.2025 as there was a considerable delay in filing the instant appeal. -5-
9) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha