GANGARAM NAG vs PAVAN KUMAR NAG

1
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO
Date:
2026.09.09
14:08:30
+0530
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO

CGHC010283862019 2026:CGHC:39242
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1629 of 2019
1 - Gangaram Nag S/o Late Asharam Nag Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Bodaras, Thana Kukanar, Tahsil Chindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ku. Laxmi Nag D/o Shri Gangaram Nag Aged About 15 Years Minor Is
Represented through natural gaurdian their father Shri Gangaram Nag R/o
Village Bodaras, Thana Kukanar, Tahsil Chindgarh, District Sukma
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Ku. Payal Nag D/o Shri Gangaram Nag Aged About 10 Years Minor Is
Represented through natural guardian their father Shri Gangaram Nag R/o
Village Bodaras, Thana Kukanar, Tahsil Chindgarh, District Sukma
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Dhanraj Nag S/o Shri Gangaram Nag Aged About 7 Years Minor Is
Represented through natural gaurdian their father Shri Gangaram Nag R/o
Village Bodaras, Thana Kukanar, Tahsil Chindgarh, District Sukma
Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants
versus
1 - Pavan Kumar Nag S/o Gangaram Nag Aged About 26 Years R/o Village
Chevaras, Thana Kukanar, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh (Driver and
Owner of Offending Vehicle),
2 - The United India Insurance Company Limited Anupama Chowk,
Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company).
... Respondents
For the appellants : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate
For respondent no.1 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For respondent no.2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate, on behalf of Mr.
Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

2
Order on Board
07.09.2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
“MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging
the impugned award dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewara Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.
31/2018 whereby a total compensation of Rs.4,87,000/- has been awarded
to the claimants.
2 . The facts of the claim case, in nut shell, are that on 03.01.2017
deceased Rambati Nag accompanied by other relatives went to the
engagement ceremony of her relative Ramsingh in village Kindarwada in
Jeep No. C.G.17/C-3701. The said Jeep belonged to her relative Pawan
Kumar Nag (Respondent no.1) and he was driving it. While returning from
the engagement ceremony, the Jeep overturned on the public road between
Gopawada and Gudra due to rash and negligent driving by respondent
no.1, as a result of which, Rambati sustained grievous injuries on head and
other parts of the body and died during treatment in hospital. Appellant
no.1 was husband and appellants 2 to 4 are children of deceased. They
being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA
seeking a total compensation of Rs. 17,68,000/- on various heads.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimants have
pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 9000/- per month as a labour
by forest produce collection and agriculture, but the learned Claims
Tribunal had taken the notional income of Rs.3000/- per month. The
Tribunal has not added any sum towards future prospects. The amounts
granted under the conventional heads are also meagre, thereby, just
compensation has not been awarded. He prays that the instant appeal be
allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may

3
suitably be enhanced.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the
appellants have failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income of
deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence,
the Tribunal is justified in taking monthly income of Rs.3000/- and thus
it has passed the just award which needs no interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have also
perused the records.
6. In absence of any documentary evidence and considering the inflation
and prevalent market rates, it would be just and proper to take the
monthly income to be Rs.6206/- treating her as unskilled labour as per
the the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages applicable in the State instead of
Rs.3000/- as taken by the Tribunal. Thus the annual income comes to
Rs.74,472/- (6206 x 12). It appears that the Tribunal has ignored to add
future prospects to the income. Since the age of deceased was found to be
35 years and there are 4 claimants, following the principles laid down by
Supreme Court, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% future prospectus,
deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 16.
Thus the total loss of dependency is worked out to Rs. 12,51,136/- Under
the other conventional heads, no amount has been granted under the loss
of estate. There are four claimants/dependents in this case. The Tribunal
has granted only Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and joint lump sump
of Rs.30,000/- for loss of love and affection which is on lower side.Under
Motor Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established that every
individual child is entitled to a separate compensation for the loss of
parental consortium. Thus each claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/-
separately and the total comes to Rs.1,60,000 for 4 claimants (40,000 x 4).
Thus the impugned award is liable to be modified as per the above
assessment.

4
7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the decisions of
the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 ; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is
computing the compensation as below :
Sl.No . Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this Court
1. Total loss of
dependency 4,32,000/-
Income Rs.6206/- X 12
= 74,472/- plus Future
Prospectus- 40% i.e.,
29,789 = 1,04,261
minus 1/4th
deduction of personal
expenses i.e., 26,065 =
78,196 x 16 multiplier
=
12,51,136/-
2. Loss of estate …. 15,000/-
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium
Rs.10,000/- plus
loss of love and
affection Rs.
30,000/-

(40,000 x 4 )
1,60,000/-

40,000/-

Total Rs. 4,87,000/- 14,41,136/-
8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.
4,87,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.
14,41,136/- Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 4,87,000/- the
appellants are held entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 9,54,136/-. The
additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of filing claim application before the Tribunal till its
realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain
intact.

5
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the Insurer would submit that in
this case, no breach of terms of insurance policy was found by the
Tribunal. However, earlier the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by
judgment dated 18.08.2025 passed in similar nature of cases i.e., MAC
Nos. 1083/2019 and MAC No. 1079/2019 filed by the Insurance Company
arising out of the same incident, while partly allowing the appeals held that
there was breach of policy and accordingly exonerated the Insurance
Company from its liability. However, the principle of pay and recover has
been made applicable in those appeals. He prays that similar order of pay
and recover be directed in this case. The said prayer is not opposed by the
claimants or driver/owner.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award
is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove.
Sd/-
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judge
Rao