Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:44117
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 390 of 2021 1 - Ratanlal Sahu S/o Badau Aged About 65 Years R/o Bodsagar, Post Faguram , Tehsil Dabhra. District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. Present Address Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Baluram Sahu S/o Ratanlal Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Bodsagar, Post Faguram, Tehsil Dabhra. District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. Present Address Seepat, Police Station Seepat , Tehsil Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bodhan Lal Sahu S/o Ratanlal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Bodsagar, Post Faguram , Tehsil Dabhra. District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. Present Address Seepat , Police Station Seepat , Tehsil Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Hemant Kumar Saitode S/o Arathram Saitode Aged About 38 Years R/o Kusumjhar, Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver) (Vehicle Bolero No. CG 13 Ac 2575) 2 - Ramballabh Jaiswal S/o Sukhdev Singh R/o House No. 129, Dabhra Navapara , Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Bolero No. CG 13
Ac
2575)
(Owner) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Rama Trade Center, 1st
2 Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)
... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyaya, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})
Order on Board 29/08/2025 This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed challenging the award dated 18/01/2021 passed in MACT No.332/2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District–Bilaspur (CG) (for short ‘Tribunal’). By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.2650000/-, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,06,800/- in favour of the appellants / claimants.
2. The claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act has been filed on account of death of Ghasneen Sahu in an accident that occurred on 13/02/2019 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Trailor) bearing registration No.CG 13 AC 2575 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 59 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by selling vegetables and looking after his husband and sons. Therefore, the aforestated compensation was claimed.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not file w.s. and remained ex-parte. The insurance company except admitted facts denied averments in the claim application and took a plea that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the driver was not having valid and effective driving license.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded the abovestated compensation.
3
5.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the income of the deceased has been wrongly been assessed. Apart from this, consortium ought to have been awarded.
6.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that just compensation has been awarded however, he submits that there is an order of pay and recover.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.
8. Learned Tribunal found the income of the deceased to Rs.7800/- which appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence and does not require any interference, however, learned Tribunal failed to award any consortium to appellant No.2 and 3. Therefore, being sons, they are entitled to receive filial consortium in the light of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130.
9. Accordingly, Rs.80,000/- be deposited by the insurance company within a period of 60 days which shall not carry any interest, out of which Rs.40,000/- each be distributed amongst appellants 2 and 3.
10. The appeal thus partly allowed. Sd/-
({Sachin Singh Rajput})
JUDGE Deepti
DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.09.02 17:43:02 +0530