Chhattisgarh High Court
MAC/2682/2025 of SMT. SEVATI SAHU Vs VISHWANATH SAHU on 30 September 2026
2026:CGHC:42793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2682 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sevati Sahu W/o Late Parasram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Ghoghara, Police Station Pithaura, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Thaneshwar Sahu D/o. Late Parasram Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o
CGHC010509792025
2026:CGHC:42793
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2682 of 2025
1 - Smt. Sevati Sahu W/o Late Parasram Sahu, Aged About 45
Years R/o Village Ghoghara, Police Station Pithaura, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
2 - Thaneshwar Sahu D/o. Late Parasram Sahu, Aged About 29
Years R/o Village Ghoghara, Police Station Pithaura, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
3 - Lokesh Sahu S/o Late Parasram Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Ghoghara, Police Station Pithaura, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Vishwanath Sahu S/o Gopal Sahu, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Pasaud, Police Station- Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband
(C.G.).........(Driver Of Eeco Van No. C.G.23 J 5771)
2 - Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2nd Floor, Chawala Complex, Devendra Nagar, Main Road, Sai Nag Raipur (C.G.)........(Insurer Of Eeco Van No. C.G.23 J 5771)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants
: Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate
For Respondent No.2
: Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment
on Board
(01.10.2026)
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.), vide impugned award dated 12.02.2025 passed in Claim Case No.H-176/2023, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 9,66,400/- as ₹
compensation on account of the death of Parasram Sahu, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 30.05.2023.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 12, whereas, at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 47 years and, therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 13. It is further contended that the claimants are the widow and two major sons of the deceased. However, it has not come to the record that they were married and living separately. Therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been made to the extent of 1/3rd of the income instead of 1/2. It is also contended that there are three claimants; however, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of consortium only to the wife of the deceased and that too only to the extent of 40,000/-, thereby depriving the other two ₹
claimants of the compensation legally payable under the said head. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2– Insurance Company opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants/claimants and submits that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with due circumspection.
5. So far as the question of deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has deducted ½ (half) of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses on the ground that two of the claimants, being the sons of the deceased, were major. Although both the sons were major on the date of the accident, there is no material available on record to show that they were living separately from the deceased. They continued to be members of the joint family. Accordingly, the deduction towards personal expenses is modified from 1/2 to 1/3rd of the income of the deceased.
6. As regards the multiplier, on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged about 47 years. Therefore, in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of 46 to 50 years is 13. Accordingly, the multiplier of 12 applied by the Claims Tribunal is substituted by the multiplier of 13.
7. It is not in dispute that there are three claimants who are the wife and two sons of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of 40,000/- towards loss of ₹
consortium only to the widow of the deceased. However, in view of the settled legal position, each of the claimants is entitled to compensation towards loss of consortium. Since the accident occurred on 30.05.2023, the claimants are entitled to an enhancement of 10% on the amounts payable under the conventional heads, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, all the three claimants shall be entitled to compensation of 48,000/- each towards loss of consortium, amounting to ₹
1,44,000/- in total. ₹
8. Considering the evidence available on record and the fact that the deceased was a non-salaried person, this Court finds that the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal and the addition towards future prospects are just and proper and do not warrant any interference.
9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, the compensation is recomputed as under:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court
Income 9960 x 12 = 1,19,520 9960 x 12 =1,19,520
2. Future prospects (+)25% (i.e.29,880) = 1,49,400 (+)25% (i.e.29,880) = 1,49,400
3. Deduction (-) 1/2 (i.e. 74,700) =74,700 (-)1/3 (i.e. 49,800)= 99,600
4. Multiplier
(x) 12 = 8,96,400
(x) 13 = 12,94,800
5. Funeral Expenses 15000 18,000
(2009) 6 SCC 121
6. Loss of estate 15000 18,000
7. Loss
of consortium 40,000 1,44,000 (48,000 x 3) Total Rs. 9,66,400/- Rs. 14,74,800/-
10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from 9,66,400/- to ₹
14,74,800/-. Thus, after deducting the amount of ₹
9,66,400/- already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the ₹
appellants/claimants
shall
be
entitled
to
an additional/enhanced amount of 5,08,400/- ₹ . The additional/enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its actual realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered.
11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.
12. The Registry is directed to communicate to the claimants, in writing, the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court in the present appeal over and above the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Such communication shall be made in Hindi (Devanagari script). For this purpose, the assistance of Para-Legal Volunteers may be availed with the coordination of the Secretary, Legal Services Authority of the concerned area where the claimants reside.
Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai