1 2025:CGHC:48516 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 337 of 2019  Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited (Correct Name As Assurance), Bhilai, Division Office 1st Floor, Chauhan Estate G. E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...........Policy No. 45120131130100000236 (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C. G. 05-D-0638. ..........Non Applicant No. 3., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Kamla Bai Wd/o Late Rajesh Kumar Mahanad Aged About 33 Years R/o Qtr. No. 238, Sadak No.1, Zone-2, B. M. Y. Charoda, Up Tahsil Bhilai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ........Claimants., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Gitika Mahanand D/o Late Rajesh Kumar Mahanand Aged About 15 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kamla Bai, R/o Qtr. No. 238, Sadak No.1, Zone-2, B. M. Y. Charoda, Up Tahsil Bhilai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...........Claimants., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Banshiram Nirmalkar S/o Late Pratap Nirmalkar Aged About 50 Years R/o J. P. Chowk, Shardapara, Champ- 2, Police Station Chhawani Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ............ (Driver Of Vehicle No. C. G. 05-D-0638) ...........Non Applicant No. 1., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Manoj Advin S/o R. A. Advin M/s Raja Steel Traders, Krishna Talkies Road Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...........(Driver Of Vehicle No. C. G. -05-D- 0638). ..........Non Applicant No. 2., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.24 14:32:25 +0530 2 WITH MAC No. 232 of 2019  Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited (Correct Name As Assurance) Bhilai Division Office 1st Floor , Chauhan Estate G. E. Road, Supela, Bhiali, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh .......Policy No. 45120131130100000236 (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G. 05 D-0638), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Mala Bai Meshram Wd/o Late Krishna Kumar Meshram Aged About 40 Years R/o Indranagar, V. M. Y. Charouida, Up Tahsil Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh....... (Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Anand Kumar Meshram S/o Late Krishna Kumar Meshram Aged About 23 Years R/o Indranagar, V. M. Y. Charouida, Up Tahsil Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh......(Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Batti Bai Wd/o Late Vitthal Ram Meshram Aged About 85 Years R/o Indranagar, V. M. Y. Charouida, Up Tahsil Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh......(Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Banshiram Nirmalkar S/o Late Pratap Nirmalkar Aged About 50 Years R/o J. P. Chowk, Shardapara, Camp-2, Police Station Chhawani Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh......(Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg 05 D 0638)......(Non Applicant No. 1), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5. Manoj Advin S/o R. A. Advin Through M/s Raja Steel Traders, Krishna Talkies Road, Risali, Bhiali, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ......(Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg 05 D 0638)......(Non Applicant No. 2), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents- Claimants : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate 3 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 22/09/2025 1) These appeals have been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company against the awards passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 427/2016 [parties being Smt. Kamla Bai & Ors. Versus Banshiram Nirmalkar & Ors.] and Claim Case No. 426/2016 [parties being Smt. Mala Bai Meshram & Ors. Versus Banshiram Nirmalkar & Ors.] dated 18.09.2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has passed awards to the tune of Rs. 43,05,212/- and Rs. 9,97,544/- respectively. 2) Facts of the present cases are that on 09.02.2014 at about 5:30 p.m., the offending truck bearing registration No. CG-05-D-0638 being driven by one Banshiram Nirmalkar rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-LL-6774. The motorcycle was being driven by Rajesh Kumar Mahanand and Krishna Kumar Meshram was pillion rider. In the accident, both of them sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. 3) The widow and daughter of deceased Rajesh Kumar Mahanand filed Claim Case No. 427/2016 claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 95,19,200/- inter-alia on the ground that the 4 deceased was working as Junior Trackman in Railways and was earning Rs. 32,346/- per-month. The widow, son and mother of deceased Krishna Kumar Meshram filed Claim Case No. 426/2016 claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,58,000/- inter-alia on the ground that age of deceased was 45 years at the time of accident and he was working in a private school as Driver. 4) Insurance Company filed its reply in both cases and denied the averments made in claim applications. Driver and owner of the offending truck filed reply and pleaded that vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and passed respective awards in both cases. 5) In MAC/337/2019, learned counsel appearing for the appellant– Insurance Company submits that the date of birth of deceased was 01.07.1974 and on the date of accident i.e. 09.03.2014, his age was more than 40 years, thus Claims Tribunal applied incorrect multiplier. She further submits that Claims Tribunal also erred in law while assessing the income by including sum of Rs. 11,460/- towards monthly income of deceased which was education allowance and same cannot be treated as part of the salary. With respect to MAC/232/2019, she submits that Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased on the basis of documents which were not duly signed by the competent authority and this fact has been admitted by the claimant–Mala Bai. She further submits that Claims Tribunal erred in law in 5 accepting the salary slip in evidence while assessing the income of deceased. She argues that the date of accident was 09.03.2014 but the offending truck was seized by the police after two years and there is no explanation in this regard in the entire record. She further argues that vehicle was implanted by the claimants. She prays to allow both appeals. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective claimants opposes. He submits that the age of deceased Rajesh Kumar Mahanand was less than 40 years and education allowance is part of salary. He further submits that this plea was not taken by the Insurance Company before the Claims Tribunal. He contends that Claims Tribunal has not committed any error of law while accepting the salary slip of deceased Krishna Kumar Meshram as proof of income while calculating the compensation. He argues that Claims Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation in both cases. 7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8) Evidently, the date of birth of deceased Rajesh Kumar Mahanand was 01.07.1974 and the accident had taken place on 09.03.2014, thus age of deceased was less than 40 years on the date of accident, therefore Claims Tribunal has applied correct multiplier and contention made by Ms. Agrawal in this regard is misconceived. The education allowance was part of salary and thus contention made by Ms. Agrawal in this regard appears to be 6 unreasonable. 9) With respect to deceased Krishna Kumar Meshram, perusal of salary slip [Exhibit P-18(C)] would reveal that deceased was getting gross salary of Rs. 7,150/- per month and net salary of Rs. 6,370/- per month. The said document has been signed by the Principal of that institution, therefore this Court is of the view that Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased based on the entries made in the salary slip. 10) With regard to implantation of vehicle, Insurance Company failed to raise this issue before the Claims Tribunal either in its reply or during evidence. This issue is being raised for the first time before this Court. Since the police seized the vehicle on 16.05.2016 and the documents were within knowledge of the Insurance Company, therefore it is too late to raise this issue at the appellate stage. Therefore, the contention in this regard cannot be accepted. 11) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to interfere with the respective awards. Consequently, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a