1 MAC No. 1712 of 2018 & MAC No. 1852 of 2018 2026:CGHC:2314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1712 of 2018 1. Smt. Santoshi Nayak Wd/o Late Likhesh Nayak, Aged About 30 Years; 2. Yikshit Nayak S/o Late Likhesh Nayak, Aged About 6 Years; 3. Prahlad Nayak S/o Late Chandar Nayak, Aged About 55 Years; Appellant No.2 is minor, through Appellant No.1 natural guardian (Mother) All are R/o Kohkapal Para Pravin Ward Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.----(Claimants). --- Appellants versus 1. Bhola Ram Sahu S/o Girdhari Lal Sahu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Bhothali Police Station Gurur District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver Of The Vehicle). 2. Deewakar Awasthi S/o Late Shriniwas Awasthi R/o C-302 Barsana Enclave Mohba Bazar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner Of The Vehicle). 3. The Future General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Shop No.3 Second Floor Maruti Business Park Opposite Dhuppad Petrol Pump Bhilai Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh.---- (Non-Claimants). --- Respondents ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MAC No. 1712 of 2018 & MAC No. 1852 of 2018 For Appellants :- Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. P. K. Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. MAC No. 1852 of 2018  Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Shop No. 3, II Floor, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). --Appellant versus 1. Smt. Santoshi Nayak W/o Late Likhesh Nayak, Aged About 30 Years; 2. Yikshit Nayak S/o Late Likhesh Nayak, Aged About 6 Years, Being Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Santoshi Nayak/respondent No. 1; 3. Prahlad Nayak, S/o Late Shri Chandar Nayak, Aged About 55 Years; All are R/o Kohkapalpara, Praveen Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh............Claimants, 4. Bholaram Shau S/o Girdhari Lal Sahu, Aged About 27 Years; R/o Village Bhothali, P.S. Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh............Driver. 5. Diwakar Awasthy S/o Late Srinivas Awasthy, R/o C-302, Barsana Enclave, Mohba Bazar, Raipur Chhattisgarh..............Owner. --- Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 :- Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. For respondents No.4 & 5 :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. 3 MAC No. 1712 of 2018 & MAC No. 1852 of 2018 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 15.05.2026 1. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in the present two appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Out of two appeals one MAC No.1712 of 2018 has been filed by the claimants and another MAC No.1852 of 2018 has been filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”). The claimants have filed the appeal against the impugned award dated 27.06.2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 166/2017 seeking enhancement in the compensation amount, whereas, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal against the said impugned award for exoneration from its liability. In the impugned the Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of ₹36,01,600/- as compensation along with interest for death of Likhesh Nayak. 3. Mr. Vikas Patel, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that just and proper compensation has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal as under the head of consortium less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be enhanced and, therefore, the appeal of the claimants is liable to 4 MAC No. 1712 of 2018 & MAC No. 1852 of 2018 be allowed and the appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would submit that the previous year insurance policy of the offending vehicle was a fake policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and liable to be exonerated. 5. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the owner and driver, would submit that the owner and driver are not liable to pay the compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records precisely. 7. It is not in dispute that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with the present Insurance Company. The plea is taken by the Insurance Company that the previous year insurance policy of the offending vehicle was a fake insurance policy, however, in this regard no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company, as such, the appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed. 8. Furthermore, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submission led by the parties and after going 5 MAC No. 1712 of 2018 & MAC No. 1852 of 2018 through the records, it appears that the Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount under the head of consortium which is liable to be enhanced. As such, in my considered opinion ₹80,000/- (₹40,000x2 = ₹80,000/-) is liable to be awarded to the claimants. 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, ₹80,000/- is enhanced/awarded by this Court to the claimants in addition to the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal i.e. ₹36,01,600/-. Hence, the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹80,000/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount i.e. ₹80,000/- of compensation shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10.Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company i.e. MAC No.1852 of 2018 is dismissed and the appeal of the claimants i.e. MAC No.1712 of 2018 is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Consequently, I.A. No.6, application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and I.A. No.7, application for grant of permission to 6 MAC No. 1712 of 2018 & MAC No. 1852 of 2018 implead respondent No.6, in MAC No.1852 of 2018 stand disposed off. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit