NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 373 of 2022 Branch Manager The New India Insurance (Correct Name Is Assurance) Company Limited. Branch Office Kewdabadi Bus Stand, Near State Bank Of India, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants Versus 1 - Smt. Anu Yadav, Wd/o Late Raju Yadav, aged about 29 years, R/o House No. 85, Kotra Road, Rajeev Nagar Gali No.2, Ward No. 1, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), 2 - Minor Chhotu Yadav, S/o Late Raju Yadav, aged about 12 years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anu Yadav Wd/o Late Raju Yadav, R/o House No. 85, Kotra Road, Rajeev Nagar Gali No.2, Ward No. 1, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 3 - Minor Ku. Anjali Yadav, D/o Late Raju Yadav, aged about 10 years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anu Yadav Wd/o Late Raju Yadav, R/o House No. 85, Kotra Road, Rajeev Nagar Gali No.2, Ward No. 1, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 4 - Smt. Munnu Bai, Wd/o Late Nanhu Yadav, aged about 65 years, R/o House No. 85, Kotra Road, Rajeev Nagar Gali No.2, Ward No. 1, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 5 - Pro. Ganesh Agrawal Through Sajan Agrawal, aged about 55 years, Vidya Nagar Bilaspur, Presently Residing At Uttam Dresses Handi Chowk Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Mahendra Ram Bhagat, S/o Bhajoram Bhagat, aged about 38 Years, R/o Village Jharan, Presently Residing At Deendayal Colony, Dhimrapur Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellants : Smt. Swati Agrawal, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Shri Deepak Singh, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : Smt. Smita Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 23 /03/2026 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 10.12.2021 passed by the V Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.29 11:41:09 +0530 -2- District – Raigarh (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in MACT Case No. 73/2021. 2. By the impugned award, while partly allowing the application against a claim of Rs.53,66,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.14,35,200/- with interest as compensation to the appellants / claimants on account of the death of the deceased Raju Yadav in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 20/05/2021 by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Trailer bearing registration No. CG-10-R-5488 by respondent No.6 / driver; owned by respondent No. 5 / Owner and insured with appellant/insurance company. 3. 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. 20.05.2021 the deceased Raju Yadav along-with pillion rider Keshav Sidar was riding on the motor-cycle bearing registration No. CG-11-AX-0862 was coming back to Rajiv Nagar, Raigarh from Village – Jiladi, at about 07:00 AM, as they reached near square Village - Amlibhauna, the driver of the offending vehicle Trailer by rash and negligent driving dashed to the motorcycle, as a result of which they sustained severe injuries and Raju Yadav died on the spot where as pillion rider sustained severe injuries. The accident was reported to Police Station – Jutemill Chauki, Raigarh against the driver of the offending vehicle and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was also filed.. 4. As per further pleadings of the claim application, deceased was aged about 30 years; performing the work of Confectioner / labour and was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. 5. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds including Insurance Company took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and there is a -3- violation of terms and condition of Insurance Policy, therefore the insurance company may be exonerated. 6. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed four issues and decided the same in favour of the respondents no. 1 to 4/claimants and awarded the above stated compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that as per the aadhar-card of the deceased his age was 37 years whereas the Tribunal found his age to 30 years as per postmortem report, thus finding with regard to age is bad in law. If the deceased was found to be 37 years, the multiplier would change which would amount to reduction of the compensation. Thus she prayed for reduction of amount of compensation. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent no.1 to 4/claimants submits a cross objection has been filed. According to him just compensation has not been awarded and suitable enhancement has been prayed for. It is next contended that The income assessed by the Claims Tribunal also appears to be on lower side; no future prospect is award and the compensation on other admissible heads also requires suitable enhancement 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record. 10. The next point for determination before this Court as to whether the deceased was aged about 37 years or 30 years as held by learned Claims Tribunal? 11. Though the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the on the basis of aadhar card the age of the deceased was 37 years, however no such document is available on record or exhibited. Even otherwise aadhar card is not to be considered for age of a person. In a recent judgment in case of -4- Saroj and Others Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. and Others; 2024 INSC 816, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration various orders passed by different High Courts and circulars of Unique Identification Authority of India accepted the contention of claimant based on the school leaving certificate for determination of age. In the case in hand, the wife of the deceased is the claimant is said to be 29 years, thus, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to 30 years on the basis of postmortem report is just and proper. 12. Now the point of determination is as to whether just compensation has been awarded by learned tribunal or not? Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.6000/-. Looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident; date of accident; as also the minimum wages, place of his working and number of dependents, this Court assesses notional monthly income of the deceased to Rs.10,000/-. In view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Head Calculation 1. Income of the deceased @ 10,000/- per month Rs.10,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,20,000/- per annum 2. Future prospect 40% (1,20,000 + 48000) = Rs.1,68,000/- 3. After ¼th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (1,68,000 - 42000) = Rs.1,26,000/- 4. Multiplier of 17 to be applied 1,26,000 x 17 = Rs. 21,42,000/- -5- 5. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.33,000/- (16500 + 16,500) 6. Parental and filial consortium Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each to respondent no. 2 to 4 7. Loss of consortium to respondent no.1 Rs.44,000/- Total compensation Rs. 23,39,000/- 13. Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.14,35,200/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.9,03,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of appeal i.e. 23/02/2022. The amount shall deposited by the respondent No.3 / Insurance Company within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. On deposit being made, Rs.3,00,000/- each shall be invested as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank in the name of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 for a period of five years and Rs.2,00,000/- shall be invested as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank in the name of appellant No1 for a period of two years. Rs.50,000/- shall be disbursed to appellant No.4. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.1 through bank transaction/account payee cheque. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by insurance company is dismissed and cross objection filed by claimants is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge -/ Ashish