Page No.1 of 7 IN MAC-728-2022 2025:CGHC:46561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 728 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 15.03.2022, passed in Claim Case No.62 of 2021 (Santoshi Chakradhari and another v. Ram Das Kumhar and others), by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir- Champa (CG)] 1 - Santoshi Chakradhari W/o Late Purshottum Chakradhari Aged About 45 Years R/o Chhal, Thana, Chhal Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Goutam Chakradhari S/o Late Purshottum Chakradhari Aged About 27 Years R/o Chhal Thana, Chhal, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/ Claimants Versus 1 - Ram Das Kumhar S/o Shri Netam Kumhar Aged About 32 Years R/o Dipapara, Budeli, Than Barmkela District Raigarh (C.G.) (Driver The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 13 A.L. 3857). 2 - Raju Kumar Kumhar S/o Malikram Kumhar R/o Bohardih, Post Hardi, Thana - Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Owner The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 13 A.L. 3857). 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. AL Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No.1-2 : None though served. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 7 IN MAC-728-2022 11.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 15.03.2022, passed in Claim Case No.62 of 2021 (Santoshi Chakradhari and another v. Ram Das Kumhar and others), by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,45,000/- as compensation for the death of Purshottum Chakradhari alongwith 9% PA from the date of claim application till its actual realization, which amount is held to be payable by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle (i.e. respondents No.01 & 02 herein). 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month which should be Rs.8960/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, as the deceased used to work as Manson. Even otherwise, though an amount of Rs.44,000/- has been awarded on the head of loss of spousal consortium for the appellant No.01, but no amount has been awarded on the head of loss of filial consortium for the appellant No.02, for which he is entitled to Rs.44,000/-. Furthermore, though Page No.3 of 7 IN MAC-728-2022 the learned Claims tribunal has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and exonerated the insurance company (respondent No.03) from paying the compensation, but no direction with regard to pay and recover has been passed. As such, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced with the direction to firstly pay the entire amount of compensation by the insurance company (respondent No.03) and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the compensation on notional basis and the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. Further, no direction for pay and recovery is required to be passed under the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the instant case, admittedly, Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.3,000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, admittedly, since the deceased used to work as Manson, therefore, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Page No.4 of 7 IN MAC-728-2022 Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.8960/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Even otherwise, no amount has been awarded on the head of loss of filial consortium for the appellant No.02, for which, he is entitled for Rs.44,000/-. 6. Thus, 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 Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.3000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000/- Rs.8,960/- x 12 = Rs.1,07,520 2. Future Prospect NIL NIL 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (Rs.12,000/-) = Rs.24,000/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.35,840) = Rs.71,680/- 4. Multiplier (x) 7 = Rs. 1,68,000/- (x) 7 = Rs.5,01,760/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No.1) Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.5 of 7 IN MAC-728-2022 8. Loss of consortium (for appellant No.2) NIL Rs.44,000/- Total Rs. 2,45,000/- Rs.6,22,760/- 7. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.6,22,760/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,45,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,77,760/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. 8. So far as the prays with regard to the direction of pay and recovery is concerned, in the present case, the learned Claims Tribunal has specifically recorded a finding that on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective license and, therefore, exonerated the respondent No.03- Insurance company and fastened the liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the respondents No.01 & 02. 9. In this regard, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Shamanna and another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others 4 whereby it has been held in Para-13 & 15 as under: “13. Since the reference to the larger Bench in Parvathneni case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 568 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 943] has been disposed of by 4 (2018) 9 SCC 650 Page No.6 of 7 IN MAC-728-2022 keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question, is in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment [Shamanna v. Laxman, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 6928] of the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored. 14. So far as the recovery of the amount from the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company shall recover as held in the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, (2004) 13 SCC 224 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 148] wherein this Court held that : (SCC p. 226, para 8) “8. … For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer.” 15. In the result, the impugned judgment [Shamanna Page No.7 of 7 IN MAC-728-2022 v. Laxman, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 6928] of the High Court insofar as enhancement of the compensation to Rs 4,94,700 is concerned is affirmed. Insofar as direction of the impugned judgment directing the appellant claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is concerned, is set aside and the appeal is partly allowed. The first respondent insurance company shall pay the enhanced compensation to the appellant claimants along with the accrued interest and the insurance company shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. No costs.” 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the above principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court it would be expedient to direct the respondent No.03 – Insurance Company to firstly pay the entire amount of compensation along with interest to the claimant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and, thereafter, recover it from respondent No.2 herein i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. It is ordered accordingly. Rest all the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if