Page No.1 of 3 IN MAC-853-2022 2025:CGHC:38141 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 853 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 31.03.2022, passed in Claim Case No.87 of 2021 (Sakhi Ram and others v. Gopal Prasad Chouhan and others) by 5th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG)] The New India Insurance Company Ltd Branch Office - Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) Through Its Authorised Authority, Manager, In-Charge T.P. Hub, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Appellant) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Sakhi Ram S/o Kushi Ram Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Chaple, P.S. Kharsia, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Krishna Kumari Patel W/o Sakhi Ram Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Chaple, P.S. Kharsia, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Gopal Prasad Chouhan S/o Vidhyanand Aged About 38 Years R/o Navagaon P.S. - Kharsia, District - Raigarh (C.G.) (Driver) 4 - Vedanta Washery And Logistic Solution Pvt. Ltd. Director - Chintu Mishra, S/o S.S. Mishra, Aged - 38 Years, R/o Kumkuni, Tehsil And P.S. - Kharsia, District - Raigarh (C.G.) (Owner) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 01.08.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant- Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 3 IN MAC-853-2022 award dated 31.03.2022, passed in Claim Case No.87 of 2021 (Sakhi Ram and others v. Gopal Prasad Chouhan and others) by 5th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG) [for short the “AMACT”], whereby the claim application filed by the respondents No.01 & 02/claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.13,19,600/- has been awarded alongwith interest @ 7.5% PA from the date of filing of claim application till its actual realization on account of death of their son, namely, Durga Prasad Patel, who was aged about 24 years and was working as Operator at Effective Enterprise Company, Chaple. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned AMACT is absolutely unjustified in allowing the claim application of the claimant. He vehemently argued that in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2 in place 1/3 deduction 1/2 out to have been deducted by the learned AMACT, as the deceased was unmarried and claimants/dependents are only his parents. Hence, the impugned award suffers from patent illegality and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 Page No.3 of 3 IN MAC-853-2022 4. True it is that the deceased was unmarried and was the only son of his parents (claimants), who died at the age of 24 years in the accident occurred on 06.01.2021. At the time of death, the deceased used to work as Operator at Effective Enterprise Company, Chaple, under the category of skilled labour and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. Learned AMACT has considered his income to be Rs.6,000/- per month, whereas since the deceased was a skilled labour, his income ought not to have been taken less than Rs.9,000/-. However, the AMACT has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- X 12 (i.e. Rs.72,000/-) and made 1/3 deduction on it, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper and, under the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned AMACT. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if