1 MAC No. 1404 of 2019 2026:CGHC:19114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1404 of 2019 1. Branch Manager Through- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Laxman Avenue, Chandni Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Mahindra Pickup bearing Registration No.CG- 17-H-2645). ... Appellant versus 1. Chaman Malviya S/o Shri Shriram Malviya, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Sun City Lalbagh, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Claimant). 2. Sohanlal Sao S/o B.L. Sao, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Pratapdev Ward No. 11, Nearby New Narendra Talkies, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Mahindra Pickup bearing Registration No.C.G.- 17-H-2645), 3. Dropadi Bai Sao W/o Bhaiyalal Sao R/o Pratapdev Ward No. 11, Nearby New Narendra Talkies, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Mahidra Pickup bearing Registration No. C.G.-17-H-2645) ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MAC No. 1404 of 2019 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 25.04.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance company challenging the impugned award dated 19.03.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar place Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 115/2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the injured claimant’s application and awarded a sum of 2,95,331/- ₹ as compensation along with interest, whereas, the injured claimant has filed the cross objection against the same impugned award seeking enhancement in the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 2. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in awarding the compensation to the injured claimant by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company as the driver of the offending vehicle holding the driving license of light motor vehicle (for short “LMV”) and the offending vehicle is the goods vehicle / transport vehicle and, therefore, the appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed and the Insurance Company be exonerated to pay compensation to the claimant. 3 MAC No. 1404 of 2019 3. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the injured claimant/respondent No.1, would submit that the compensation amount is liable to be awarded to the injured claimant. He would also submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present case. He would further submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the injured claimant ₹6,000/- per month which should be ₹7,800/- per month as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that future prospect and future medical treatment have not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be awarded. Further under the head of pain and suffering less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be enhanced. As such, the cross objection of the injured claimant deserves to be allowed and the amount may suitably be enhanced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records meticulously. 5. The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi and 4 MAC No. 1404 of 2019 others 1 has held that the driver holding the license of LMV class under Section 10(2)(d) is permitted to operate a transport vehicle without any additional authorization and observed as under:- 181. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under: 181.1. A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle” without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the “transport vehicle” class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e- rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. 181.2. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a “transport vehicle”, does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. 181.3. The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules generally for driving “transport vehicles” would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 kg i.e. “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger vehicle”. 181.4. The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) [Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663] is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and the MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. 1 (2025) 3 SCC 95 5 MAC No. 1404 of 2019 6. The decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambha Devi (supra) has fully covered the issue involved in the present appeal, as such, in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Further, while considering the cross objection it appears that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be 6,000/- however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the ₹ Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be 7,800/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at ₹ relevant time) and 93,600/- per annum. Furthermore, future ₹ prospect and future medical treatment are liable to be awarded and under the heads of pain and suffering amount is liable to be enhanced. 8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income ₹6,000x12= 72,000/- ₹ ₹7,800x12= 93,600/- ₹ 2. Future Prospect NIL (+) 10% =9,360/- Total = 93,600+9,360= ₹ ₹1,02,960/- 6 MAC No. 1404 of 2019 3. Loss of earning capacity 16% = 11,520/- 16% = 16,473/- 4. Multiplier (x) 11 = 1,26,720- ₹ (x)11 = 1,81,203/- ₹ 5. Loss of earning capacity during treatment 6,000x3 = ₹ 18,000/- ₹ ₹7,800x3 = 23,400/- ₹ 6. Pain & suffering ₹15,000/- 30,000/- ₹ 7. Future medical treatment NIL 25,000/- ₹ 8. Transportation ₹10,000 10,000/- ₹ 9. Assistance ₹10,000/- 10,000/- ₹ 10. Healthy diet ₹10,000/- 10,000/- ₹ 11. Medical Bills ₹65,611/- 65,611/- ₹ 12. Loss of amenities ₹20,000/- 20,000/- ₹ 13. Expectations of life ₹20,000/- 20,000/- ₹ 14. Total ₹2,95,331 /- ₹3,95,214/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹2,95,331 /- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹3,95,214 /-. Hence, after deducting the amount of 2,95,331 ₹ /-, the claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of 99,803/- ₹ . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its 7 MAC No. 1404 of 2019 realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the injured claimant is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit