Kamini Bai and ors. Vs. Kumar Chandrakar and ors.

Kamini Bai and ors. vs Kumar Chandrakar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chhattisgarh Decided Dec 20, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/496737

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/496737
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Judge: S.R. Nayak, C.J. and; Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Decided On: Dec 20, 2005
Subject: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 5,000 towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and Rs. 20,000 towards loss of love and affection to minor child and another Rs.

Key legal issue: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kamini Bai and ors.

Advocate Mr. Verma

Respondent

Kumar Chandrakar and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: II(2006)ACC347

Excerpt

- - 5,000 towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and rs. 20,000 towards loss of love and affection to minor child and another rs.s.r. nayak, c.j.1. this is an appeal preferred by the dependants of the deceased seeking more compensation. the appellants are widow, minor child and parents of the deceased. the only contention raised by mr. verma, learned counsel for the appellants in the course of argument is that what is awarded towards conventional heads as compensation is very much on lower side.2. we have perused the impugned award. the m.a.c.t. has awarded sum of rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and rs. 3,000 towards funeral expenses. it has not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate. as we repeatedly said and reiterated in our orders recently handed down that even the compensation to be awarded by the m.a.c.t. under conventional heads should reflect time and place and it cannot be static for all the time. therefore, we award rs. 20,000 towards loss of consortium to the widow, rs. 20,000 towards loss of love and affection to minor child and another rs. 20,000 towards loss of the estate. the impugned award shall stand modified accordingly and in all other respects the impugned award shall remain unaltered.3. in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in this appeal.

Full Judgment

S.R. Nayak, C.J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the dependants of the deceased seeking more compensation. The appellants are widow, minor child and parents of the deceased. The only contention raised by Mr. Verma, learned Counsel for the appellants in the course of argument is that what is awarded towards conventional heads as compensation is very much on lower side.

2. We have perused the impugned award. The M.A.C.T. has awarded sum of Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and Rs. 3,000 towards funeral expenses. It has not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate. As we repeatedly said and reiterated in our orders recently handed down that even the compensation to be awarded by the M.A.C.T. under conventional heads should reflect time and place and it cannot be static for all the time. Therefore, we award Rs. 20,000 towards loss of consortium to the widow, Rs. 20,000 towards loss of love and affection to minor child and another Rs. 20,000 towards loss of the estate. The impugned award shall stand modified accordingly and in all other respects the impugned award shall remain unaltered.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in this appeal.

Same Court & Year Chhattisgarh · 2005 Same Parties Kamini Bai and ors. vs Kumar Chandrakar and ors. Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge S.R. Nayak, C.J. and; Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles