Doomer Dhar vs Dhan Singh

1

CGHC010019902016 2026:CGHC:46080
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
THE DATE WHEN
THE DATE WHEN THE
THE DATE WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE
THE CASE IS
JUDGMENT IS
PRONOUNCED
RESERVED
Operative Full
16.10.2026 30.10.2026 30.10.2026
MAC No. 641 of 2016
1 - Doomer Dhar S/o Raghu, Aged About 55 Years Caste Bhatra, R/o Village
Dhanpunji Chandli, Orissa
2 - Smt. Gurwari, W/o Doomer Dhar, Aged About 50 Years Caste Bhatra, R/o Village
Dhanpunji Chandli, Orissa
3 - Kamla, W/o Late Harishchand, Aged About 24 Years Caste Bhatra, R/o Village
Dhanpunji Chandli Orissa,
4 - Limsar, S/o Late Harishchand, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Her Natural
Guardian Kamla W/o Late Harishchand, Caste Bhatra, R/o Village Dhanpunji
Chandli Orissa,
5 - Dhaneshwar, S/o Late Harishchand, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Her
Natural Guardian Kamla W/o Late Harishchand, Caste Bhatra, R/o Village
Dhanpunji Chandli Orissa
... Appellants/Claimants
versus
1 - Dhan Singh S/o Ganesh, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Korta, Bakawand
District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
2 – Sarikhi Ram, S/o Fakira Ram, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Manjhi Dhanua
Koshagumda, Tahsil Koranga, District Navrangpur, Orissa
Digitally
signed by
BINI
PRADEEP
Date:
2026.10.30
17:45:42
+0530
BINI
PRADEEP

2
3 - Cholamandalam M. S. General Insurance Company Ltd. II Floor, Simran Tower,
L.I.C. Building, Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate
({Hon’ble Mr. Justice Santosh Sharma})
C A V Judgment
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants
seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the
impugned award dated 07.09.2015 passed in Claim Case No.86/2015,
whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.5,51,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date
of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
2. The case of the appellants, as pleaded in the claim petition, is that
on 09.01.2015, they were returning to their native village, Chandli,
(Orissa), after celebrating the Diari festival at the house of a relative in
village Rajnagar. Deceased Harishchandra, along with Umesh and Sudhir,
was travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-17-KC-2743,
while the remaining claimants were following them in an autorickshaw. At
about 5:00 p.m., near the forest bend between Kosmi and Korta, a pickup
vehicle bearing registration No. OD-24-7915, driven by respondent No. 1,
Dhansingh, allegedly at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner,
collided head-on with the motorcycle. As a result of the accident,
Harishchandra, Umesh and Sudhir sustained injuries. Harishchandra
succumbed to his injuries while being taken to the Community Health

3
Centre, Bakawand, whereas Sudhir sustained a fracture of his left hand.
In connection with the said accident, Crime No.8/2015 was registered at
Police Outpost Bakawand, Distt. Bastar for offence punishable under
Sections 279, 337,338, 304(A) Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of
investigation, a charge sheet was filed against respndent No.1 before the
competent criminal Court. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle
was owned by non-applicant No.2 Sarikhi Ram and insured with non-
applicant No. 3 Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, claiming total compensation of Rs.34,05,500/-, pleading that
the deceased was approximately 24–25 years of age and earned 6,000/- ₹
per month by working as a labourer. They claimed compensation towards
loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of parental care and affection,
funeral expenses and other conventional heads.
4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely the driver and owner of the
offending pickup vehicle, contested the claims, alleging that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle rider.
They further pleaded that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle
and that they were under the influence of alcohol after celebrating the
festival. It was also contended that the motorcycle rider did not possess a
valid and effective driving licence and that the owner and insurer of the
motorcycle were necessary parties. The respondents maintained that the
offending pickup vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3, the
insurance company, on the date of the accident.
5. The insurance company also contested the claims, disputing its
liability on the grounds that the accident resulted from the negligence of

4
the motorcycle rider, the motorcycle was carrying three persons in violation
of the statutory provisions, and the driver of the offending vehicle did not
possess a valid and effective driving licence. It further alleged breach of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and sought to avoid
liability for payment of compensation.
6. The Tribunal upon examining the oral and documentary evidence,
held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
pickup vehicle by respondent No. 1, resulting in the death of
Harishchandra. The Tribunal rejected the pleas of contributory negligence
and breach of insurance policy conditions for want of cogent evidence and
held respondent No. 3, the insurer, liable to pay compensation. The
Tribunal assessed the deceased’s monthly income at 3,000/-, deducted ₹
one-fourth towards personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 18, and
awarded 4,86,000/- towards loss of dependency, along with other ₹
conventional heads, thereby granting total compensation of 5,51,000/-. ₹
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants
submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is
contrary to the evidence available on record and the settled principles
governing the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the
monthly income of the deceased at 3,000/- instead of 6,000/-, as ₹ ₹
claimed by the appellants, thereby substantially reduced the amount of
compensation payable to them. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has
erroneously calculated the loss of dependency and that the deduction
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, as well as the

5
assessment of the annual dependency, which require reconsideration in
accordance with the applicable legal principles. Learned counsel further
contends that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads of
funeral expenses and loss of estate are inadequate and that the Tribunal
has erred in not awarding compensation towards future prospects of the
deceased. It is also argued that the Tribunal has unjustifiably declined to
recognise appellant No. 1 as a dependent of the deceased and has failed
to award compensation under the appropriate head for loss of love and
affection, as claimed. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the
appellants prays that the impugned award be suitably modified and the
amount of compensation be enhanced in accordance with law.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3/Insurance company supporting the impugned award submitted that
the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly
passed the award which warrants no interference by this Court.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
10. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the
compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and
proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should
neither be a meager amount or a bonanza.
11. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of
Rs.5,51,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in
the given facts and circumstances of the case?

6
12. So far as the source of income of the deceased is concerned, the
Tribunal for want of any oral or documentary evidence, assessed the same
as 3000/- per month on notional basis. The claimants pleaded that the ₹
deceased was working as labourer and thereby earning 6000/- but no ₹
evidence in support thereof could be adduced. However, considering that
the accident occurred on 09.01.2015 and that the monthly income of an
unskilled labourer is stated to have been 5,517/- at the relevant time, this ₹
Court considers it appropriate to assess the monthly income of the
deceased at 5,517/-. Accordingly, his annual income comes to 66,204/- ₹ ₹
( 5,517 × 12). The Tribunal has not awarded any amount in future ₹
prospects, whereas it ought to have considered the verdicts of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and Others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma and
Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 .
Hence, the above issue required to be considered. In view of the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
(Supra) , an addition of 40% towards future prospects is warranted,
considering that the deceased was 25 years of age and was earning as a
labourer, the amount towards future prospects comes to 26,481.60 ₹
( 66,204 × 40%), the annual income comes to 92,685.60 ₹ ₹ . The amount
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is required to be
deducted in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma
(supra) , as approved in Pranay Sethi (supra) . Considering that the
deceased was married and left behind four dependants, one-fourth (¼) of
his annual income, inclusive of future prospects, is deducted towards his
personal and living expenses, which comes to 23,171.40 ( 92,685.60 × ₹ ₹

7
¼ ). Accordingly, the annual contribution to the family comes to 69,514.20 ₹
( 92,685.60 − 23,171.40). Applying the multiplier of 18, as adopted by the ₹ ₹
Tribunal, the total compensation payable towards loss of dependency
comes to 12,51,255.60 ( 69,514.20 × 18). ₹ ₹
13. Apart from the loss of dependency, the Tribunal awarded 50,000/- ₹
towards loss of estate, 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and 10,000/- ₹ ₹
towards loss of consortium. However, in the light of Pranay Sethi
(Supra), the compensation of the above heads required to be modified,
thus, the compensation awarded under the aforesaid conventional heads
requires modification. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of
estate is enhanced to 15,000/- for each of the four claimants, aggregating ₹
to 60,000/- ( 15,000/- × 4). The compensation towards funeral expenses ₹ ₹
is also enhanced to 15,000/- as against 5,000/- awarded by the ₹ ₹
Tribunal. Further, the compensation towards loss of consortium is
enhanced to 40,000/- for each of the four eligible claimants, aggregating ₹
to 1,60,000/- ( 40,000/- × 4). ₹ ₹ Thus, the claimants are entitled for
compensation in the following manner:-
Sl.
Head of
Amount awarded
Amount awarded
No.
compensation
by the Tribunal
by this Court
1. Loss of dependency ₹ 4,86,000/- ₹ 12,51,255.60
2. Loss of estate ₹ 50,000/- ₹ 60,000/-
3. Funeral expenses ₹ 5,000/- ₹ 15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 1,60,000/-
Total compensation ₹5,51,000/- ₹14,86,255.60
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appellants/claimants are held
entitled to total compensation of ₹14,86,255.60, as against 5,51,000/- ₹
awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry

8
interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal, from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The remaining terms and
conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered, except to the extent
modified herein.
15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed . The impugned award
dated 07.09.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Case No. 86/2015
is modified to the extent indicated above. The parties shall bear their own
costs.
Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma)
Judge
Bini