[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Anita Sonwani vs Bhuvanlal Dhankar on 23 March, 2026
1
MAC No. 203 of 2019
2026:CGHC:13686
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
NAFR
ANKIT KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.03.23
17:29:38
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
+0530
MAC No. 203 of 2019
1. Smt. Anita Sonwani W/o Late Shri Jay Sonwani, Aged
About 27 Years;
2. Raj Sonwani S/o Late Shri Jay Sonwani, Aged About 5
Years;
3. Chandrika Sonwani W/o Bhagwat Sonwani, Aged About 55
Years; (As Amicus Currie Of Minor Appellant No. 2 His
Mother Applicant No. 1), R/o Village Tiraiya, P.S. Dharsiva
Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1. Bhuvanlal Dhankar S/o Shri Balaram Dhankar, R/o
Village Kokanpur, P.S. Korar, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.
494334 (Driver Of The Tanker No. C.G. 17-H-7001).
2. Uma Shankar Shukla S/o Gajadhar Shukla, R/o House No.
314-C, Shukla Street, Vardhaman Colony, P.S. Bodhghat,
Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The
Tanker No. C.G. 17-H-7001).
3. United India General Insurance Company Ltd. Through
Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kachahri Chowk, Jail
Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
492001. (Insurer Of The Tanker No. C.G. 17-H-7001).
... Respondents
For Appellant :- Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
23.03.2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the
appellants/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount
of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated
24.10.2018 passed by the 4th Additional Claims Tribunal,
Raipur of 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short "Claims
Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 431/2016, whereby learned
Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹21,01,400/-
as compensation along with interest for death of Jay
Sonwani.
2. Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants,
would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in
calculating the amount of compensation. He would also
submit that the Claims Tribunal has awarded
₹21,01,400/- as compensation which should be
₹21,64,400/-. He would further submit that under the
heads of filial consortium and parental consortium
amount has not been awarded to the mother-Chadrika
Sonwani and son-Raj Sonwani of the deceased,
respectively, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may
suitably be enhanced.
3. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company/respondent No.3, would oppose the prayer
made by learned counsel for the appellants and support
the impugned award. He would also submit that the
amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal
is just and proper which does not call for any interference.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and gone
through the records meticulously.
5. In the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has
rightly assessed the income of deceased to be
₹1,32,000/-, however, while calculating the future
prospect wrongly mentioned ₹33,200/- in place of
₹35,200/- and therefore, while awarding the award, less
amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. As
such, ₹63,000/- is liable to be enhanced in the
compensation amount. Furthermore, under the heads of
filial consortium to mother-Chadrika Sonwani and
parental consortium to son-Raj Sonwani of the deceased
has not been awarded which is liable to be awarded.
6. Thus, in view 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
Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is
computing the compensation as below:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Compensation
awarded by the awarded by this Court
No.
Tribunal
1. Income ₹ 1,32,000/- (yearly) ₹ 1,32,000/- (yearly)
2. Deduction (-) 1/3 = ₹ 44,000/- (-) 1/3 = ₹ 44,000/-
₹1,32,000-44,000 = ₹1,32,000-44,000 =
₹88,000/- (total ₹88,000/- (total
income) income)
3. Future (+) 40% = ₹33,200/- (+) 40% = ₹35,200/-
prospect total income = ₹ total income = ₹
1,21,200/- (typed 1,23,200/-
₹1,23,200/-)
4. Multiplier (x) 17 = ₹ 1,23,200 x (x) 17 = ₹20,94,400/-
17 = ₹20,94,400/-
5. Loss of ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
Estate
6. Funeral ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
Expenses
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
7. Spousal ₹40,000/- ₹40,000/-
Consortium
8. Filial Nil ₹40,000/-
Consortium
9. Parental Nil ₹40,000/-
Consortium
Total ₹21,01,400/- ₹22,44,400/-
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of
compensation of ₹21,01,400/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is enhanced to ₹22,44,400/-. Hence, after
deducting the amount of ₹21,01,400/-, the appellants
are held to be entitled to an additional amount of
₹1,43,000/-. The additional amount of compensation
shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its
realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award
shall remain intact.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the
impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated
herein-above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Ankit
