Sahil Dewangan vs Nemchand Yadav
2026 Latest Caselaw 103 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Sahil Dewangan vs Nemchand Yadav on 26 February, 2026

                                 1




                                                 2026:CGHC:9939
                                                              NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                     MAC No. 1908 of 2023

1. Sahil Dewangan S/o Late Santosh Dewangan Aged About 16
   Years (Represented Through His Uncle (Tauji) Namely Chhatlal
   Dewangan S/o Shri Bhaneshar Dewangan, Aged About 58 Years)
   Resident Of Ward No. 15, Bhilaigarh, Police Station And Tahsil-
   Bhilaigarh, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Claimant)

2. Jatin Dewangan S/o Late Santosh Dewangan Aged About 11
   Years (Represented Through His Uncle (Tauji) Namely Chhatlal
   Dewangan S/o Shri Bhaneshar Dewangan, Aged About 58 Years)
   Resident Of Ward No. 15, Bhilaigarh, Police Station And Tahsil-
   Bhilaigarh, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Claimant)
                                                  ... Appellant(s)

                              versus

1. Nemchand Yadav S/o Shyamlal Yadav Aged About 34 Years
   Resident Of Village- Basaiha, Police Station- Rajendragram,
   District- Anuppur (C.G.) Present Address- Vishnu Chowk, Tifra,
   Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle Cg 10 C 5323)

2. Karan Vishwakarma S/o Shri Ashok Vishwakarma Aged About 28
   Years Resident Of Vishnu Chowk, Tifra, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur
   (C.G.)   (Owner      Of    Vehicle     Cg     10      C       5323)

3. New India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch
   Manager, Branch Office, Raipur Road, Balodabazar, District-
   Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle Cg 10 C 5323)
                                                 ... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Ms. Gunjan Rani Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

26.2.2026

1) Heard on I.A. No. 1, application for condonation of delay in filing

the appeal.

2) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimants have

preferred this appeal with delay of 1343 days. She further submits

that claimants who are sons of deceased were minors at the time

of passing of award and due to paucity of funds, they could not

prefer the appeal within limitation. She prays to condone the

delay.

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Insurance

Company would oppose.

4) Taking into consideration the submission made by Ms. Gunjan

Rani Agrawal and the reasons assigned in application, I.A. No. 1

is allowed and delay of 1343 days caused in filing the instant

appeal is hereby condoned.

5) With consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

6) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under

Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award

passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar

Bhatapara in Claim Case No. 17/2019 dated 20.11.2019, whereby

learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.

9,03,600/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Santosh

Dewangan.

7) Facts of the present case are that on 14.3.2018 at about 2:30 pm,

Santosh Dewangan was travelling in pick-up vehicle which was

going from Bilaigarh to Bilari. When the pick-up vehicle reached

Ghorabhata-Vijaynagar, the offending vehicle - Truck bearing

registration No. CG-10-C-5323 dashed the pick-up vehicle. In the

accident, Santosh Dewangan sustained grievous injuries and died

on spot. Claimants, who are the sons of the deceased moved

claim application and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.

44,00,000/-. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence

and award impugned was passed.

8) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though learned

Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased and

granted appropriate compensation under conventional heads but

failed to award separate compensation towards loss of

consortium. She prays to modify the award accordingly.

9) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and

proper compensation.

10) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with

utmost circumspection.

11) Admittedly, learned Tribunal has granted loss of income to the

tune of Rs. 8,73,600/- and awarded Rs. 15,000/- each towards

loss of estate and funeral expenses and respective compensation

under these heads have not been disputed by the claimants.

However, learned Tribunal failed to grant separate compensation

towards loss of consortium whereas claimants who are the sons

of deceased are entitled to receive separate compensation

towards loss of consortium as held by Hon'ble Supreme in the

matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @

Chuhru Ram & Ors.1 . Therefore, in my opinion, claimants are

entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- each along with an additional sum

of 20%.

12) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.9,03,600/-

awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.9,99,600/-.

Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.

96,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of

additional compensation assessed herein-above in addition to the

award passed by learned Tribunal period of 60 days with interest

@ 9% p.a. from date of application till its realization. The

claimants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period

of delay caused in filing this appeal.

13) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned

award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya

1. (2008) 18 SCC 130