SMT. CHANDRIKA BAI MANDAVI vs VINEET KUMAR KOMRE

1

CGHC010113482024 2026:CGHC:45855
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 711 of 2024
1 - Smt. Chandrika Bai Mandavi W/o Late Jeevan Lal, Aged About 40 Years R/o- Village-
Barettola, Police Station and Tahsil - Chhurila, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
2 - Loman Mandavi S/o Late Jeevan Lal Aged About 23 Years R/o- Village-Barettola, Police
Station and Tahsil - Chhurila, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
3 - Smt. Rajota Mandavi W/o Late Laduram Aged About 65 Years R/o- Village-Barettola,
Police Station And Tahsil - Chhurila, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Appellants
versus
1 - Vineet Kumar Komre S/o Dhruw Kumar Komre R/o Joratarai Post - Bandha Bazar,
Police Station- Ambagarh Chowki, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.).( Driver of Offeding Bus
Bearing Registration No. CG-08- AK- 9902).
2 - Vipin Yadav S/on- Prakash Yadav, R/o- Village- Ghoghre, P.S.- Chhuria, District-
Rajnandgaon (C.G.).( Owner of Offeding Bus Bearing Registration No. CG-08- AK- 9902)
3 - Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, New Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon
(C.G.). ... Respondents
For the appellants : Ms. Deeksha Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For respondent no.3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Order on Board
29.10.2026

2
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 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case
No. 40/2020 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 11,95,000/- has been
granted to the claimants.
2 . As per the facts pleaded in claim application filed under Section 166
of the MV Act, deceased Jeevanlal Mandavi died in a motor accident
occurred on 15.12.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent
no.1 who drove the offending Bus No. C.G. 04-DS/0810 and hit the motor
cycle of the deceased. Appellant No.1 is the widow, appellant no. 2 is son
and appellant no.3 is mother of deceased. During the pendency of claim
case, another claimant-son Trilok Mandavi died, therefore, his name was
deleted. The claimants being legal heirs have filed claim application u/s 166
of the M.V. Act, seeking a total compensation of Rs.47,50,000/-.
3(i). Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the award passed by
the Tribunal is on lower side thereby just compensation has not been
awarded. She prays that the instant appeal be allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.
(ii) She also submits that because of breach of policy found by
the Tribunal, the liability stands fastened on the owner/respondent no.2
and since the offending vehicle got insured with respondents no.3, she
prays that principle of pay and recover be made applicable in this case.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that there was
breach of Insurance Policy, therefore, the liability stands fastened on the
owner/driver. He further submits 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.

3
6. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning monthly
income of Rs.30,000/- by undertaking the work of tiles contract. In
absence of any cogent reliable evidence regarding the nature of job and
income of deceased, the Tribunal has rightly taken his income to be
Rs.8600/- per month treating him as unskilled labour as per the the
Minimum Wage Rates applicable in the State.
7. Since the age of deceased was found to be 46 years and there are 3
claimants, following the case-law laid down by Supreme Court, the
Tribunal has rightly added 25% future prospectus, deducted 1/3rd towards
personal expenses and applied multiplier 14 which cannot be said to be
unsustainable.
8. The Tribunal has awarded a joint lumpsum of Rs.77,000/- under the
other conventional heads by following the principle of 10% automatic
enhancement. Therefore, the amounts awarded under the loss of estate
(Rs.16,500/-) and funeral expenses (Rs.16,500/-) cannot be said to be on
lower side.
9. As regards consortium, it appears that a lumpsum amount (44,000/-)
has been granted for all the claimants, which cannot be allowed to sustain.
Under Motor Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established that
every individual dependent-claimant is entitled to a separate compensation
for the loss of consortium or love and affection. There are 3 claimants in
this case. Thus each claimant is entitled to Rs.44,000/- separately and the
total comes to Rs.1,32,000/- 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 :

4
Sl.No . Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this
Court
1. Total loss of
dependency
11,18,000/-

11,18,000/-
(unchanged)

2, Loss of estate 16,500/-
3. Funeral expenses 16,500/-
4. Loss of consortium
(44000 x 3
Claimants)
1,32,000/-


5. Joint lumpsum
granted by the
Tribunal under other
heads as stated at
Sl.Nos.2, 3 & 4.
77,000/-
Total Rs. 11,95,000/- 12,83,000/-
11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.
11,95,000/-awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,83,000/-
Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 11,95,000/- the appellants are
held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.88,000/-. 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. In this case, considering the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal
has found that at the time of accident, the offending bus was driven
without valid permit, therefore, there was breach of terms of insurance
policy. Hence the liability stands fastened on respondent no.2/owner.
However, it is not disputed that at the time of accident, the the offending
vehicle was insured with respondents no.3.

5
13. Considering the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
cases of Amrit Paul Singh Versus Tata AIG General Insurance
Company Ltd (2018) 7 SCC 558 and particularly the fact that at the time
of accident the vehicle was insured with Insurance Company, in order to
protect the third party interest, this Court is inclined to direct the
Insurance Company to comply with the principle of pay and recover.
Accordingly, it is directed that respondent no.3 shall first pay the amount
of compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the
owner.
14. 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:
2026.11.02
12:13:19
+0530
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO