Chhattisgarh High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Chhattisgarh HC Adds Rs 8.27 Lakh To Accident Award For Man’s Family, Grants Rs 44,000 Consortium To Each Of 5 Claimants

SMT. SHWETA PANDEYv.SUNIL DAS MAHANT

Chhattisgarh HC Adds Rs 8.27 Lakh To Accident Award For Man’s Family, Grants Rs 44,000 Consortium To Each Of 5 Claimants. SMT. SHWETA PANDEY vs SUNIL DAS MAHANT. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income and resulting loss of dependency required enhancement.

The court held

The appeal was allowed in part.

It also directed

The Court enhanced total compensation from ₹12,99,577 to ₹21,26,920, entitling the appellants to an additional ₹8,27,343.

The additional amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application until realization; the remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award remain unchanged.

01Facts

The appellants—deceased Chakradhar Pandey’s widow, two minor children, and parents—sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after he sustained fatal injuries in a motorcycle collision on 28 March 2022 and died on 1 April 2022.

¶ 1–4

They claimed that he earned ₹30,000 per month as a priest and driver.

¶ 1–4

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed his monthly income at ₹6,000 and awarded total compensation of ₹12,99,577.

¶ 1–4

The claimants appealed under Section 173, seeking enhancement; the insurer opposed the appeal.

¶ 1–4

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income and resulting loss of dependency required enhancement.

¶ 3, 6–7

ii.Whether the amounts awarded for consortium, medical expenses, and attendant or caregiving charges required enhancement.

¶ 8–9

03Law Applied

Under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, dependants may claim compensation for a death caused by a motor accident, and an appellate court may review and modify the Tribunal’s award.

¶ 10

In assessing compensation, Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, provides guidance on future prospects, deductions for personal expenses, and selection of the multiplier; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, governs the addition for future prospects and conventional heads; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, informs compensation for consortium.

¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court considered the Tribunal’s income assessment of ₹6,000 per month too low.

¶ 6–10

In the absence of reliable evidence establishing the deceased’s occupation and earnings, it assessed income at ₹9,280 per month, applying the relevant Chhattisgarh minimum wage for an unskilled worker.

¶ 6–10

It upheld the Tribunal’s 40% addition for future prospects, one-fourth deduction for personal expenses, and multiplier of 15, given the deceased’s age of 37 and five dependants.

¶ 6–10

The Court also found that consortium had been awarded only as a lump sum for all five claimants and held that each was entitled to ₹44,000, totalling ₹2,20,000.

¶ 6–10

It increased the combined amount for medical expenses and caregiving or attendant charges from ₹88,577 to ₹1,20,000, while retaining ₹16,500 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶ 6–10

05Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

¶ 10–12

The Court enhanced total compensation from ₹12,99,577 to ₹21,26,920, entitling the appellants to an additional ₹8,27,343.

¶ 10–12

The additional amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application until realization; the remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award remain unchanged.

¶ 10–12
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

SMT. SHWETA PANDEYvsSUNIL DAS MAHANT

Chhattisgarh High Court · October 26, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment