1 2025:CGHC:49200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 332 of 2024 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Pin 492010 (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ishwari Bai Markande D/o Jethuram Aged About 37 Years W/o Santosh Kumar Markande, R/o Village Pod, P.S. Panduka, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 2 - Kamal Joshi S/o Dev Prasad Joshi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Boring, Ghasidas Chowk Mungsar, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver Vehicle Bolero Car No. Cg 04 Ha 8986) 3 - Manohar Das Vaishnav S/o Govind Das Aged About 23 Years R/o Santoshi Mandir Gariyaband, P.S. Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) (Owner Vehicle Bolero Car No. Cg 04 Ha 8986) --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 157 of 2024 1 - Ishwari Bai Markande D/o Jethuram, W/o Santosh Kumar Markande Aged About 37 Years R/o Village-Pod, Thana-Panduka Tahsil Chhura, Distt.-Gariyabandh (C.G.), (Claimant) ---Petitioner(s) Versus NIRMALA RAO 2 1 - Kamal Joshi S/o Dev Prasad Joshi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Boring Ghasidas Chowk Mungsar Tahsil-Aarang, District-Raipur (C.G.). (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero Car No. C.G. 04/h.A./89861). 2 - Manohar Das Vaishnav S/o Govind Das Vaishnav R/o Santoshi Mandir Gariyabandh, Thana- Gariyabandh, District- Gariyabandh (C.G.). (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero Car No. C.G. 04/h.A./89861) 3 - Branch Manager Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor Maruti Heights G.E. Road Raipur Tahsil-Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.). (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero Car No. C.G. 04/h.A./89861). --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 235 of 2024 1 - Kuleshwari W/o Late Tikaram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sonai Dongari, P.S. - Gurur, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2 - Toran S/o Late Tikaram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sonai Dongari, P.S. - Gurur, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pradyusman S/o Tikaram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sonai Dongari, P.S. - Gurur, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Kamal Joshi S/o Dev Prasad Joshi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Boring, Ghasidas Chowk Mungsar, Tahsil - Aarang, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Bolero Car No. Cg-04-Ha-8986) (Driver) 2 - Manohar Das Vaishnav S/o Govind Das R/o Village Gariyaband, P.S. - Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Bolero Car No. Cg-04- Ha-8986) (Owner) 3 - Branch Manager Shreeram General Insurance Cot. 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahisl And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Bolero Car No. Cg-04-Ha-8986) (Insurer) --- Respondent(s) 3 MAC No. 307 of 2024 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, Dist.- Raipur, Pin 492 010, C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Kuleshwari W/o Late Tikaram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sonai Dongri, P.S. Gurur, Dist. Balod, C,g 2 - Toran S/o Late Tikaram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sonai Dongri, P.S. Gurur, Dist. Balod, C,g 3 - Pradyuman S/o Late Tikaram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sonai Dongri, P.S. Gurur, Dist. Balod, C,g 4 - Kamal Joshi S/o Dev Prasad Joshi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Boring, Ghasidas Chowk Mungsar, Tahsil Arang, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 5 - Manohar Das Vaishnav S/o Govind Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Gariyaband, P.S. Gariyaband, Dist. Gariyaband, C.G. --- Respondent(s) MAC No.332 of 2024: For Appellant/ Insurance Company : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate alongwith Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. For claimant/ respondent No.1 : Shri A.L. Singraul, Advocate. MAC No.157 of 2024: For Appellant/ Claimant : Shri A.L. Singraul, Advocate. For respondent No.3/ Insurance Company : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate alongwith Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate. MAC No.235 of 2024: For Appellants/ Claimants : Shri A.L. Singraul, Advocate. 4 For respondent No.3/ Insurance Company : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate alongwith Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate. MAC No.307 of 2024: For Appellant/ Insurance Company : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate alongwith Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. For claimants/ respondents No.1 to 3 : Shri A.L. Singraul, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.09.2025 In MAC Nos.332 of 2024 & 157 of 2024: 1. The Insurance Company and the claimant has challenged the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband in Claim Case No.22 of 2022 dated 4.10.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.1,68,210/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by claimant – Ishwari Bai Markande. 2. The Insurance Company has challenged the award on various grounds whereas, the claimant has filed appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3. The brief facts are that on 6.10.2021 at about 1:30 pm, respondent No.2/ Kamal Joshi (Driver) driving a Bolero Car bearing registration No.C.G.04 HA 8986, rashly and negligently dashed the claimant. Consequently, she sustained grievous injuries, including fractures of tibia and fibula bones of the right leg. In the said accident, Ku. Urvashi 5 Sahu also sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The injured filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.23,50,000/-. The respondents filed their reply. Learned Tribunal framed issues, the parties led evidence and thereafter, the award was passed in both the cases. 4. Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that there was a delay in the registration of FIR. He would contend that accident had taken place on 6.10.2021 whereas, merg intimation was lodged on 7.10.2021 against an unknown vehicle but the FIR was registered on 17.11.2021 against the offending vehicle. Thus, there was every possibility of implantation of offending vehicle. He would contend that the claimant/ injured exaggerated his claim and the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law while fastening liability with the Insurance Company. He would pray to set aside the award. 5. Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the merg intimation was lodged on 7.10.2021 and pursuant to merg enquiry, the police registered the FIR against the offending vehicle on 17.11.2021. He would contend that the Insurance Company could not lead evidence to prove the fact that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. He would contend that claimant - Ishwari Bai Markande is an eyewitness and she identified the offending vehicle. He would further submit that though there was 70% disability but the learned Tribunal has not considered said document while assessing the compensation. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal has 6 not granted compensation on conventional heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of the disability certificate (Ex. P/21) would show that it was issued by a medical officer on the basis of x-ray report. Admittedly, there was a fracture of tibia and fibula bones of right leg of the claimant and there were no multiple bony injuries. The claimant did not appear before the medical board and failed to lead evidence to establish the fact that she suffered any disability on any part of the body on account of accident, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly not extended any benefit on the basis of disability certificate. 8. Perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.1,210/- for medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.5,000/- for special diet and Rs.2,000/- for conveyance. It appears that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of earning as the claimant remained hospitalized for four days and further, the compensation has not been paid for attendant. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to pay an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- to the claimant on two above-stated heads within a period of 60 days. The said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/ Insurance Company (MAC No.332 of 2024) is dismissed and the appeal filed by the 7 appellant/claimant (MAC No.157 of 2024) is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. In MAC Nos.235 of 2024 & 307 of 2024: 10. The claimants and the Insurance Company have challenged the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband in Claim Case No.139 of 2021 dated 4.10.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.22,12,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Urvashi Sahu. 11. Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company would submit that Ku. Urvashi Sahu was an unmarried lady but the learned Tribunal has committed error by deducting 1/4th for her personal and living expenses. He would contend that the according to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, the deduction should be 50%. He would contend that the accident had taken place on 6.10.2021 whereas, merg intimation was lodged on 7.10.2021 against unknown vehicle but FIR was registered on 17.11.2021 against the offending vehicle. Thus, there was every possibility to involve the vehicle. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law while fastening liability with Insurance Company. He would pray to set aside the award. 12. Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. He would submit that compensation for loss of consortium has not been 8 awarded to claimants No.2 & 3. He would contend that the claimants would be entitled to an additional sum of 10% on the said amount according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 14. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried lady, she was working as a Nurse but in absence of any relevant document the learned Tribunal has considered her income Rs.10,000/- per month, which appears to be proper. The award would further show that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation to claimants No.2 & 3 for loss of consortium. It is also evident that the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/4th for personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of 50%, therefore, the compensation requires reconsideration. 15. Considering the above-stated facts, the compensation is being revisited herein-below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 10,000 x 12 = Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 10,000 x 12 = Rs. 1,20,000/- 2. Future Prospect 40% (48,000/-) (1,20,000 + 48,000 = 1,68,000/- 40% (48,000/-) (1,20,000 + 48,000 = 1,68,000/- 3. Deduction 1/4 (1,68,000 – 42,000 = 1,26,000/-) 1/2 (1,68,000 – 84,000 = 84,000/-) 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = Rs. 21,42,000/- (1,26,000 x 17) (x) 17 = Rs. 14,28,000/- (84,000 x 17) 5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 9 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 8. Loss of consortium(for appellants No. 2 & 3) - - Rs. 88,000/- (44,000 x 2 = 88,000/-) TOTAL Rs.22,12,000/- Rs. 15,86,000/- 16.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.22,12,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs.15,86,000/-. The Insurance Company shall be liable to satisfy the award. The terms and conditions laid down by the learned Tribunal shall remain intact. 17. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants (MAC No.235 of 2024) and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company (MAC No.307 of 2024) are partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi