[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Jayanti Manjhi vs Sukhlal Sahu on 6 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:15485
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 612 of 2025
1 - Smt. Jayanti Manjhi W/o Late Nagdev Manjhi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village-
Salebhata, Police Station And District- Nuapada (Odisha )
2 - Nandani Manjhi D/o Late Nagdev Manjhi @ Nanddev Manjhi Aged About 7 Years
Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Jayanti Manjhi Appellant
No. 1, R/o Village- Salebhata, Police Station And District- Nuapada (Odisha )
3 - Ayush Kumar Manjhi S/o Late Nagdev Manjhi Aged About 1 Years Minor On Behalf Of
Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Jayanti Manjhi Appellant No. 1, R/o Village-
Salebhata, Police Station And District- Nuapada (Odisha )
4 - Smt. Sukhmat Manjhi (Died) Aged About 75 Years Nil
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Sukhlal Sahu S/o Raghunath Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o- Village- Bahari, Police
Station- District- Sidhi (M.P.) (Non-Applicant No. 1) (Driver Of Vehicle Truck Bearing
Registration No. Cg/07/bw/3651)
2 - Tarun Kumar Sonkar S/o Bhagwantaram Sonkar Aged About 26 Years R/o- 59,
Teeturdhar, Dhamdha, District- Durg (C.G.)(Non-Applicant No. 2) (Registered Owner Of
Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg/07/bw/3651)
3 - The United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional
Office, Krishna Complex, Jail Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) (Non-
Applicant No. 3)(Insurer Of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg/07/bw/3651)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S. P. Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. G. V. Kutumb Rao, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
06/04/2026
Heard on IA No. 01 - application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed
and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
4. Challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 08.10.2024 passed in
Motor Accident Claim Case No. 885 of 2022 by the 2 nd Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, CG by which against a
claim of Rs. 36,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation
of Rs. 14,90,400/- in favour of the appellants on account of death of the
deceased Nagdev Manjhi in an accident that took place on 07.02.2022 by
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck bearing
registration No. CG 07 BW 3651 by respondent No. 1/driver, owned by
respondent No. 2/owner and insured with respondent No. 3 / insurance
company.
5. As per pleading of the claim application, the deceased died on
account of the said accident, he was a tiles mason and was earning Rs.
13,000/- per month.
6. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various
grounds and denied the averments of the claim application and respondent
No. 3 / insurance company pleaded that there is violations of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy. The learned Tribunal framed issues on
the basis of the pleadings and decided the same in favour of the claimants
and awarded the above stated compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was
aged about 36 years and was working as a tiles mason being a skilled
labour. It is contended that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month
however, the learned Tribunal has erroneously assessed his monthly
income only Rs. 7,800/-. Therefore, it is prayed that a suitable
enhancement may be made.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned award
and submits that no documentary evidence with regard to the occupation
and income of the deceased was produced. It is therefore contended that
the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just compensation and no
interference is warranted.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
10. Taking into consideration the submissions and also evidence on
record, age of the deceased; minimum wages; number of dependents
including wife and two minor children aged about 7 and 1 year to make the
compensation just, this Court is inclined to take the monthly income of the
deceased to Rs. 11,000/- per month. In light of the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 this Court computes the compensation in
the following manner:-
S. No. Description Amount
1. Monthly income 11000/-
2. 40% Future prospect 4400/-
3. Total Monthly Income (11000+4400) 15400/-
4. Total Yearly Income (15400x12) 1,84,800/-
5. 1/3 Deduction for personal expenses of 61600/-
deceased
6. Net income 123800/-
7. Multiplier of 15 applied to assess total loss of 18,48,000/-
dependency
8. Funeral Expenses 16500/-
9. Loss of estate 16500/-
10. Spousal consortium 44000/-
11. Parental consortium 80000/-
12. Total compensation 20,05,000/-
11. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of
compensation of Rs. 14,90,400/- awarded by learned tribunal is enhanced
to Rs. 20,05,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 14,90,400/-,
the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,14,600/-.
The additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above
extent.
12. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount
of compensation within 60 days. After deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- (each) shall
be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank till attaining majority in
the name of appellant Nos. 2 & 3; Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be invested as fixed
deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of two years in the name of
appellant No. 1. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No. 1 through
bank transaction/account payee cheque.
13. No cost.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
Pawan
