TOPLAL vs RAJENDRA SAHU

1

CGHC010234512023 2026:CGHC:46507
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1273 of 2023
1 - Toplal S/o Baniram Netam Aged About 45 Years Caste- Gond, R/o
Village- Bandhupara, Gram Panchayat Loada, Thana and Tahsil- Pathariya,
District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt. Panchkunwar W/o Toplal Netam Aged About 40 Years Caste-
Gond, R/o Village- Bandhupara, Gram Panchayat Loada, Thana and
Tahsil- Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants
versus
1 - Rajendra Sahu S/o Anjor Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o- Village
Ward No. - 6, Sodhar, Thana and Tahsil- Mungeli, District- Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh (Owner cum Driver of the Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No.
C.G.28-K/3837).
2 - Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Address- S 8, S 9, 2nd
Floor C.G. Plaza, Agrasen Chowk, Near- Telephone Exchange Bilaspur,
Tahsil and District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of the Offending
Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G.28-K./3837). ... Respondents
For the appellants : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For respondent no.2 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
(Order on Board)

03.11.2026
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 13.03.2023 passed by the Learned Additional

2
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
in Claim Case No. 41/2021 whereby a total compensation of Rs.9,77,200/-
has been granted.
2 . As per the facts pleaded in claim application filed under Section 166
of the MV Act, deceased Yogiraj Netam died in an accident occurred on
16.06.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 who drove
the offending motorcycle No. C.G.28-K/3837 and hit the deceased’s
motorcycle. Appellants are parents of the deceased and they being legal
heirs have filed claim application u/s 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking a total
compensation of Rs. 38,50,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income taken by
the Tribunal is on lower side and the amounts granted under the other
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 suitably be enhanced.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2/Insurer submits that the
Tribunal has granted adequate compensation and the impugned award
needs no interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
6. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning monthly
income of Rs.20,000/- per month by doing the job of painter as also by
agricultural works. However, the Tribunal took the income of deceased as
Rs. 6000/- per month, which seems to be on lower side. In absence of any
cogent reliable evidence regarding the nature of job and income of deceased
and looking to the prevalent market rates, it would be appropriate to take
his monthly income to Rs.9,200/- treating him as unskilled labour as per
the the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages applicable at the time of accident
occurred on 16.06.2021.

3
7. Since the age of deceased was found to be 18 years and there are
two claimants, following the case-law laid down by Supreme Court, the
Tribunal has rightly added 40% future prospectus, deducted one-half (½)
towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 18 which cannot be said
to be unsustainable.
8. The Tribunal has awarded a joint lumpsum of 70,000/ - under the
other conventional heads like loss of consortium; loss of estate and funeral
expenses which appears to be meagre in view of the principle of 10%
automatic enhancement.
9. As regards consortium, it appears that a lumpsum amount (40,000)
has been granted for the two claimants, which cannot be allowed to
sustain. Under Motor Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established
that every individual claimant is entitled to a separate compensation for the
loss of consortium or love and affection. Thus each claimant is entitled to
Rs. 44,000/- separately and the total comes to Rs. 88,000/- for the two
claimants under this specific head.
10. Thus, 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
9,07,200/-

Rs.9200 X 12 =
1,10,400 plus Future
Prospectus- 40% i.e.,
44,160 = 1,54,560
minus one-half (1/2)
personal expenses i.e.,
77,280 = 77,280 x
18 multiplier =

4
13,91,040/-
2, Loss of estate 16,500/-
3. Funeral expenses 16,500/-
4. Loss of consortium
(44000 x 2 Claimants)
88,000/-


5. Lumpsum granted
under the other
heads at Sl.Nos. 2,
3 & 4.
70,000/-
Total Rs. 9,77,200/- 15,12,040/-
11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.
9,77,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs 15,12,040/-.
Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 9,77,200/- the appellants are
held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.5,34,840/- . 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.
12. 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

Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO
Date:
2026.11.04
17:58:04
+0530

ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO