1 (MAC No. 772 of 2023) 2025:CGHC:42135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 772 of 2023 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Head Office, E-8 Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajsthan) Through- Regional Manager Having Regional Office At Plot No. 1, 4 Th Floor, Maruti Heights Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer Mahoba Bazar Besides R. K. Mall, G. E. Road Raipur ..........Insurer, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Shivcharan Thakur S/o Late Sonsai Aged About 55 Years R/o Nayapara, Village Balud, Tahsil And District Dantewada, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Rayanti Thakur @ Rayati W/o Shivcharan Thakur Aged About 45 Years R/o Nayapara, Village Balud, Tahsil And District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Chandni Thakur D/o Shivcharan Thakur Aged About 22 Years R/o Nayapara, Village Balud, Tahsil And District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Pushpa Thakur D/o Shivcharan Thakur Aged About 17 Years Appellant No. 4 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Appellant No. 1 ..........Claimants, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 5 - Akshay Nag S/o Samuram Nag Aged About 22 Years R/o Patelpara Village Baalpet, Police Station And Tahsil Dantewada ...........Driver, Chhattisgarh 6 - Bamanram Kunjam S/o Sukda Kunjam Aged About 22 Years ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.08.25 10:49:13 +0530 2 (MAC No. 772 of 2023) R/o Patelpara Palnar, Village Kumharsadra Tahsil Bastanar .........Owner, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant :- Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 :- Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 20.08.2025 1. The appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure A/1), passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh in Claims Case No.84/2021, by which the Claims Tribunal has held that the offending vehicle was duly insured by the appellant-insurance company on the date of accident and the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,68,094/- along with 9% interest from the date of claim application has been fastened upon the insurance company and in 3 (MAC No. 772 of 2023) which the claimants have also filed cross-objection for enhancement of the award of compensation. 2. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company would submit that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and has been falsely implanted in the incident to fasten the liability to pay compensation upon the insurance company as the FIR was lodged after delay of 23 days and that too against an unknown vehicle. He would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed grave legal error in deducting one third towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been 50%. He would also submit that excessive amount of Rs.88,000/- has been awarded to two sisters of the deceased under loss of love and affection head, which is on the higher side and deserves to be deducted. 3. Mr. Vikas Patel, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents Nos.1 to 4 would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side and it deserves to be enhanced. 4 (MAC No. 772 of 2023) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. So far as the plea of the appellant-insurance company with regard to delay in lodging FIR is concerned, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi Vs Badrinarayan and others 1 may be noticed herein profitably in which their Lordships have clearly held that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case and observed in para 17 & 19 as under :- "17. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 5 (MAC No. 772 of 2023) such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons." 6. In that view of the matter, the delay in lodging the FIR can not be a ground to reject the claimant’s case. The second ground raised by the appellant-insurance company is that since the deceased was a bachelor, the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been 50%, instead of one third. However, two of the claimants are unmarried and non-earning sisters of the deceased therefore, one-third deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is absolutely justified in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr2. So far as award of Rs.88,000/- granted for loss of love and affection to claimant Nos.3 & 4/two sisters of the deceased is concerned, it appears to be on the higher side and deserves to be deducted. As such, the appeal of the insurance company is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 (MAC No. 772 of 2023) 7. Now, it is the case of the claimants that as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the minimum income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs.8,960/-, per month i.e. Rs.01,07,520/- per annum. 8. In view of the above, this Court is computing the compensation as below :- Heads Tribunal New Calculation Income as per minimum wages. Rs. 7,710 x 12 = Rs. 92,520/- Per Annum Rs. 8,960 x 12 = Rs. 1,07,520/- Per Annum Future prospects 40% of Rs.92,520/- is Rs.37,008/- and total comes to Rs.1,29,528/- 40% of Rs.1,07,520/- is Rs.43,008/- and total comes to Rs.1,50,528/- Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/3) Rs.86,783/- Per Annum Rs. 1,50,528 – 50,176= Rs.1,00,352/- Per Annum Multiplier Loss of dependency 18 x 86,783 = Rs.15,62,094/- 18 x 1,00,352/- = 18,06,336/- Funeral expenses and loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs.44,000/- Rs.44,000/- Rs.44,000/- Rs.44,000/- Rs.44,000/- Rs.44,000/- Total Rs.17,68,094/- Rs. 19,30,336/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.17,68,094/- awarded by the Claims 7 (MAC No. 772 of 2023) Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.19,30,336/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.17,68,094/- the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,62,242/-. The concerned party 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 the claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 26.03.2021 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, the appeal of appellant-insurance company and the cross-appeal filed by the claimants under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure both are partly allowed to the above extent. The concerned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) @d!t! Judge