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
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.
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 :
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.
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
