IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
Subhesh Jogi, Champa Bai Jogi – Appellant
Versus
Mulchand Chelkar, Khilesh Kumar Gahire, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
MAC No. 1066 of 2019
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for compensation in motor accident. (Para 1) |
Order On Board
08/07/2025
1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of Digitally PAWANsigned K JHU AMARb P Ky A UW MA AN R JHA compensation, challenging the award dated 30.04.2019 passed by Learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 255/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 8,56,240/- as compensation in motor accidental death case.
2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 10.09.2017 Subhesh Jogi along with her wife Usha Bai was going from his native place Pandariya to Manpur on motorcycle no. CG09JE1255. When he reached near village Bijatarai, non-applicant No. 1 while driving his motorcycle No. CG28B6318 (henceforth “offending motorcycle”) rashly and negligently coming from opposite direction, dashed the motorcycle of Subesh Jogi and caused accident. In the accident, Subhesh Jogi and Usha Bai suffered grievous injuries. They were admitted to Mundra Hospital, Bilaspur where during the course of treatment Usha Bai died.
3. Appellants, husband and mother-in-law of deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 18,42,000/-
on the basis of pleadings made therein.
4. Respondent No. 1 / Non-applicant No. 1 -driver of the offending motorcycle filed reply to the application and denied the pleadings made therein. It was further stated that on the date of accident, offending motorcycle was insured with non-applicant No. 3.
5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident, offending motorcycle was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy as the driver of the offending motorcycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle.
6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Usha Bai Jogi died because of grievous injuries suffered by her in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending motorcycle driven by non-applicant No. 1. Contributory negligence on the part of appellant injured, breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 8,56,240/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicant No.
3/ Insurance Company.
7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is much less than what the claimants are entitled for. She submits that the Claims Tribunal overlooking the date of accident, nature of occupation pleaded, assessed income of deceased as ₹ 5200/- per month. She contended that the Tribunal though held the occupation of deceased to be one fo the daily wage labourer, however, has not taken into consideration the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority for unskilled labourer. She next contended that the Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/2 towards personal and living expenses instead of 1/3 which is contrary to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. She next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation towards loss of foetus as along with deceased there was death of foetus also in the womb of the deceased.
8. Learned counsel for respective respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.