(MAC No.1226/2019) CGHC010217922019 2026:CGHC:31560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1226 of 2019 {Arising out of award dated 27-2-2019 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in MACT No.244/2014} The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through the Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madina Building, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Represented through Asstt. Manager, T.P. Hub, At T.P. Hub Office, Rama Trade Centre, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respdt. No. 3) ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Kaushilya Bai, Wd/o late Laxmi Narayan Chelak, aged about 31 years; 2. Pildas, S/o Laxmi Narayan Chelak, aged about 12 years; 3. Kumari Pileshwari, D/o late Laxmi Narayan Chelak, aged about 6 years; 4. Umeshwar, S/o Laxmi Narayan Chelak, aged about 1 year; 5. Kumari Bai, Wd/o late Neelkanth Chelak, aged about 55 years; 6. Rakesh Kumar, S/o late Neelkanth Chelak, aged about 15 years; 7. Vinod Kumar, S/o late Neelkanth Chelak, aged 12 years; 8. Kumari Rakeshwari, D/o late Neelkanth Chelak, aged about 13 years; Note: Respondents No.2 to 4 are minors and they are represented through their mother and natural guardian Res. No.1 Smt. Kaushilya Bai, PERMANENT ADDRESS Sanjay Ward, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.07.24 16:03:49 +0530 (MAC No.1226/2019) Respondents No.6, 7 and 8 are minors and they are represented through their natural guardian and mother Respondent No.5 Smt. Kumari Bai, All are residents of village Chakve, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 9. Om Prakash, S/o Dasru Ram Chaturvedi, R/o Village Chhadiya, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 10. Smt. Hemlata Ali, W/o Kaasam Ali, resident of A-27, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. R.N. Pusty and Mr. Aakash Shrivastava, Advocates. For Respondent No.9 : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.10 : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 23/07/2026 1. The appellant herein/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 27-2-2019 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in MACT No.244/2014, by which a compensation of ₹ 11,45,200/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 8 herein by fastening liability upon the appellant herein/Insurance Company. 2. Mr. R.N. Pusty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that want of fitness certificate for the offending (MAC No.1226/2019) vehicle would not be a fundamental breach of policy condition which runs contrary to the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Adesh Kumar and another v. Smt. Satarupa Bai Yadav and others1. 3. Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No.9 herein, and Ms. Ankita Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle/respondent No.10 herein, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal and submit that the impugned award does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in Adesh Kumar (supra) relying upon the five-judge Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the matter of Pareed Pillai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.2 has clearly held that absence of fitness certificate for the offending vehicle is fundamental breach of policy condition, and observed as under: - “21. In view of very specific aforementioned provisions of the Act of 1988 and the ruling of Kerala High Court authored by one of us Hon’ble Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon, we hold that, absence of fitness certificate for the offending vehicle is fundamental breach of policy condition.” 1 MAC No.1289/2014, decided on 19-11-2020 (2020:CGHC:18660-DB) 2 AIR 2019 Kerala 9 (MAC No.1226/2019) 6. In that view of the matter, the principle of pay and recover as propounded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others3 would apply to the facts of the present case and accordingly, the appellant herein/Insurance Company will firstly pay the award amount and thereafter, recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. Cross-Objection 7. In the present case, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Laxminarayan Chelak to be ₹ 5,000/-, 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 ₹ 5,163/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). 8. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was working as a Mason, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi4, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors5 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram 3 (2004) 3 SCC 297 4 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 (2009) 6 SCC 121 (MAC No.1226/2019) @ Chuhru Ram & Ors6, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 5,000/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 5,000 x 12 = ₹ 60,000/-. ₹ 5,163/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 5,163 x 12 = ₹ 61,956/-. 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 24,000; total yearly income = ₹ 60,000 + 24,000 = ₹ 84,000/-. (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 24,782-40 ps; total yearly income = ₹ 61,956 + 24,782-40 = ₹ 86,738-40 ps. 3. Deduction (-) 1/5 = ₹ 16,800/- ₹ 84,000 – 16,800 = ₹ 67,200/- (-) 1/5 = ₹ 17,347-68 ps. ₹ 86,738-40 – 17,347-68 = ₹ 69,390- 72 ps. (rounded off to ₹69,391/-) 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = ₹ 10,75,200/- (x) 16 = ₹ 11,10,256/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 40,000/- x 5 = ₹ 2,00,000/- Total ₹ 11,45,200/- ₹ 13,40,256/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 11,45,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 13,40,256/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 11,45,200/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 1,95,056/-. The Insurance Company 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 a copy of this order and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver as stated above. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before 6 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.1226/2019) the Tribunal i.e. 31-3-2014 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, the Cross-Objection as well as the appeal stands finally disposed of by modifying the impugned award to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma