1 2025:CGHC:47479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 749 of 2022 1 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, LIC Building Commercial Campus, 1st Floor, Shyam Square Pandri Raipur (C.G.) Through Authorized Signatory, Senior Divisional Manager, T. P. Hub Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Lekhan Bai Devdas, Wd/o. Late Maikuram Devdas, Aged About 37 Years, R/o. Village Kurud (Kutela) P.S. Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Daneshwar Devdas, S/o. Late Maikuram Devdas, Aged About 18 Years, R/o. Village Kurud (Kutela) P.S. Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Minor Shalni Devdas, D/o. Late Maikuram Devdas, Aged About 12 Years, Through Guardian Mother Smt. Lekhan Bai Devdas, R/o. Village Kurud (Kutela) P.S. Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Ghanshyam Chouhan, S/o. Gopal Chouhan, Aged About 29 Years, R/o. Village Dhumabhata, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of Mini Bus No. CG 06 H 0391) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.09.17 17:01:04 +0530 2 5 - Jasvinder Sing, S/o. Jasbeer Sing, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Ward No. 14, Ganjpara, Mahasamund, P.S. And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Munni Bai, Wd/o. Maikuram Devdas, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. Village Kakdehi, P.S. Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Minor Ku. Radhika, D/o. Maikuram Devdas, Aged About 16 Years, Through Guardian Mother Munni Bai, R/o. Village Kakdehi, P.S. Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. B.N.Nande, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 3 Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 & 7 : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 16.09.2025 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 30.03.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. H-44/2019, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and liability has been fastened upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation Rs.8,31,250/- along-with interest @ 6% 3 per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. The claimants have also filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of the amount under award. 2. The appeal of insurance company & cross-objection of the appellants/claimants both have been heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Mr. B.N.Nande, learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company, would submit that the insured vehicle was falsely implanted in the accident in question whereas it was not involved in the accident, as the accident occurred on 08.07.2018, FIR was registered on the same day, but the vehicle has been seized after eight months and, as such, the vehicle has wrongly been implanted. He would further submit that the vehicle did not have valid permit to ply on the road, therefore, the insurance company ought to have been exonerated from its liability and, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondent No.6 & 7 would support the impugned award so far as liability is concerned and they seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation. 5. I have heard the appeal of the insurance company as well the cross-objection filed by the claimants, considered the rival 4 submissions of the parties made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. Appeal of the Insurance Company 6. The grounds urged was that the vehicle was wrongly implanted, however, specific plea has been taken by the insurance company in paragraph 12 & 13 of the written statement that the insured vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.06-H-0931 was wrongly implanted after eight months of the accident dated 08.07.2018 to recover the amount of compensation, as there is collusion between the claimants and the driver & owner of the vehicle and the accident had occurred from unknown vehicle. However, the insurance company had examined one investigator and driver of the offending vehicle who was prosecuted for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. in Crime No.118/2018. The Investigator namely Gangadhar Patel has been examined and he has stated that he had not investigated the Crime No.118/2018 registered at Police Station -Tumgaon for offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C., which was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Ghanshyam Chouhan. As such, the investigator of the insurance company did not investigate the question as to whether the offending vehicle was wrongly implanted or not ? As such, the evidence of the insurance company is of no use to this case. 5 7. Now the learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record including the statement of Investigator- Gangadhar Patel, witness of the insurance company, has clearly recorded a finding that driver Ghanshyam Chouhan has been prosecuted for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and charge sheet has been filed against him and he is facing trial before the criminal court and on that basis the rash & negligent act of the driver has clearly been established and that finding is unassailable and I hereby affirm the said finding. 8. The next question that the vehicle did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle, therefore, the insurance company be exonerated from its liability. It would be pertinent to mention here for which the insurance company has not led any evidence and did not take any steps to lead evidence. Therefore, this plea of the insurance company is also rejected. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Appeal of the Claimants 9. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Maikuram Devdas to be Rs.5,000/- per month, 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 6 should be Rs.8,620/- per month, which comes to Rs. 1,03,440/- per annum. 10. 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:- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 5,000 x 12 = Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 8,620 x 12 = Rs. 1,03,440/- Add 25% towards future prospects Rs. 15,000 + 60,000 = Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 25,860 + 1,03,440 = Rs. 1,29,300/- Deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses Rs. 75,000 – 18,750 = Rs.56,250/- Rs. 1,29,300 – 32,325 = Rs.96,975/- Multiplier of 13 Rs. 56,250 x 13 = Rs. 7,31,250/- Rs. 96,975 x 13 = Rs. 12,60,675/- Loss of consortium Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 44,000 x 4 = Rs. 1,76,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- Total Rs. 8,31,250/- Rs. 14,69,675/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 8,31,250/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,69,675/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 8,31,250/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,38,425/-. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months. The additional amount of compensation shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Claimants Smt. Munni Bai & Ku. Radhika will be entitled for the said compensation amount along-with claimants Smt. Lekhan Bai, Daneshwar Devdas & Shalni Devdas. 13. In the result, the appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and the cross-objection of the claimants is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge