Chattisgarh High Court
Budram Gawade vs Masuram Poyam on 30 April, 2026
Digitally signed
by ASHISH
ASHISH TIWARI
Date:
TIWARI 2026.05.18
11:27:35
+0530
2026:CGHC:16471
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
M.A.(C) No. 838 of 2026
1 - Budram Gawade, S/o Late Aaytu Gawade, aged about 22 years, R/o Village
Bastanaar Patel Para, Police Station Kodenaar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
2 - Ku. Mahage Gawade, D/o Late Aaytu Gawade, aged about 20 years, R/o Village
Bastanaar Patel Para, Police Station Kodenaar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
3 - Munna Ram Gawade, S/o Late Aaytu Gawade, aged about 19 years, R/o Village
Bastanaar Patel Para, Police Station Kodenaar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
4 - Fagnu Gawade, S/o Late Aaytu Gawade, aged about 18 years, R/o Village
Bastanaar Patel Para, Police Station Kodenaar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellants
Versus
1 - Masuram Poyam, S/o Late Soma Ram Poyam, aged about 31 years, R/o
Bastanaar Bodma Para, Police Station Kodenaar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
...........(Offending Vehicle No. Cg 18 Q 0897 Driver/ Owner)
2 - Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Office 106,
107, First Floor, Walfort Zone Building, Old Bilaspur Road, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur,
Post Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
............(Offending Vehicle No. Cg 18 Q 0897 Insurer)
--- Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
For Appellants : Shri Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate.
For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Shri Aditya Panda, Advocate appeared on behalf
of Shri D.L. Dewangan, Advocate.
__________________________________________________________________
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
30/04/2026
1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026 application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal.
2. On due consideration, it is allowed and the delay of 23 days in filing the
appeal is hereby condoned.
3. Heard on admission.
-2-
4. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short ‘MV Act‘) by the appellants / Claimants is to the legality,
correctness and validity of the award dated 11.11.2025 passed by I Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”), District – Bastar (C.G.)
in Claim Case No. – 247/2024.
5. By the award impugned, against a claim of Rs.45,00,000/-, the learned
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.19,15,500/- along-with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim application till its realization
in favour of appellants/Claimants on account of death of deceased Aaytu
Gawade died on unfortunate accident that occurred on 21.09.2024 by which
the driver of the offending vehicle dashed motorcycle of the deceased. As a
result of which he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The
offending vehicle was Driven/Owned by respondent No.1 and insured with
respondent No.2.
6. As per pleadings in the claim application filed under section 166 of the MV Act
by the appellants/claimants, on the date of accident i.e. 21 .09.2024, the
deceased Aaytu Gawade had gone to Bastanaar Chowk while returning to his
home by motorcycle, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.
C.G>-18-Q-0897 dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of which
he sustained severe injuries on various parts of the body and died on the spot
The accident was reported to Police Station – Kodenar for the offence
punishable under Section 106(1) of B.N.N.S., 2023 in Crime No. 93/2024 was
registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.
7. As per the further pleadings, the deceased was aged about 39 years; laborer
and was agriculturist and was earning Rs.. 18,000/- per month. The
appellants are children of the deceased.
-3-
8. The respondent No. 1 by filing written statement denied the averments of the
claim application. The amount of compensation is claimed exaggerated and
liability may be fastened upon the Insurance Company.
9. The claim application was resisted by respondent No.2 / Insurance Company
denying the averments made by the appellants and taking a plea that the
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving
license. There is a violation of terms and condition of the insurance Policy.
Hence, Insurance Company may be exonerated.
10.On the basis of above broad pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal
framed four issues and decided the same in favour of the
appellants/claimants.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income of the deceased
was Rs.18,000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal erred in assessing
the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, suitable
enhancement may be made.
12. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the income of the deceased
has rightly been assessed. The deceased was said to be in age group of 40-
50 years. The appellants are major children of the deceased. On assessment
of evidence the Tribunal found the notional monthly income of the deceased
to Rs.10,000/-.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions
and also perused the record.
14. Considering the entire evidence available on record and the finding recorded
by the Claims Tribunal cannot said to be perverse contrary to the record. The
learned Tribunal found the monthly income of the appellant to Rs.10,000/-
per month and awarded compensation in the following manner:-.
-4-
S.No. Head Calculation
1. Yearly income Rs.1,20,000/-
2. After deduction 40% Rs.30,000/-
3. For loss of dependency Rs.90,000/-
4. Applying Multiplier of 15% Rs.13,50,000/-
5. For Future Expenses 25% Rs.3,37,500/-
6. For Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
7. For love and affection Rs.1,92,000/-
8. For loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation Rs.19,15,500/-
15. In the opinion of this Court, the assessment of income and computation of
the compensation appears to be just and proper. It is settled position of law
that the compensation should not be meager amount of compensation nor a
bonanza. The appellants are the major children of the deceased, and this
Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by
the learned Claims Tribunal.
16. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-Sd/- /-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
-/ Ashish
