Facts
On 27.02.2021, the deceased, Budhram Sahu, was riding his motorcycle when he was struck by a 'Force Toofan' driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 1
Source reference: para. 3The deceased succumbed to head and chest injuries during treatment
Source reference: para. 3The Appellants (wife, three minor children, and mother) filed a claim petition seeking ₹30,00,000
Source reference: para. 4The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kurud, awarded ₹18,91,400, calculating the deceased’s income at ₹6,048 per month
Source reference: para. 2 & 6The Appellants challenged this award before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, seeking enhancement on the ground that the deceased was a skilled mason earning ₹9,000 per month
Source reference: para. 6Issues
1. Whether the monthly income of the deceased determined by the Claims Tribunal was inadequate given his status as a skilled laborer/mason
Source reference: para. 6-92. Whether the compensation awarded under various heads requires enhancement to meet the standard of "just compensation"
Source reference: para. 6-10Law Applied
The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals
Source reference: para. 2Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 regarding multipliers and deductions for personal expenses
Source reference: para. 10National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 regarding future prospects and conventional heads
Source reference: para. 10Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 regarding the grant of parental and filial consortium
Source reference: para. 10Reasoning
The Court observed that the Tribunal's assessment of income at ₹6,048 was inappropriate as the deceased was a skilled mason
Source reference: para. 9Based on the nature of the job and the date of the accident, the Court revised the monthly income to ₹12,000
Source reference: para. 9Applying the Pranay Sethi standard, the Court added 40% for future prospects (as the deceased was 31 years old) and deducted 1/4th for personal expenses given the five dependents
Source reference: para. 10A multiplier of 16 was applied per Sarla Verma. The Court further corrected the conventional heads, awarding ₹44,000 for spousal consortium and ₹1,60,000 for parental/filial consortium for the four remaining claimants (three children and mother), alongside statutory amounts for funeral expenses and loss of estate
Source reference: para. 10-11Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the original award was insufficient. The total compensation was enhanced from ₹18,91,400 to ₹26,56,200
The Court ordered Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) to pay the additional ₹7,64,800 with 6% simple interest from the date of appeal filing (08.02.2023). Specific directions were issued for the protection of the minors' shares via fixed deposits and the apportionment of funds among the claimants. The appeal was allowed in part
Source reference: para. 11-12Original Court PDF
SMT. KANTI BAI SAHUvsOmprakash Sahu
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in