1 2025:CGHC:46240 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1070 of 2022 1 - Purnima Kurre, W/o. Late Sanjay Kumar Kurre, Aged About 26 Years, R/o. At Sardha Bhantha P.S. Sarsiva, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Trimurti Chowk, Mulmula, P.S. Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Riya Kumari Kurre, D/o. Late Sanjay Kumar Kurre, Aged About 5 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Purnima Kurre, W/o. Late Sanjay Kumar Kurre, R/o. At Sardha Bhantha P.S. Sarsiva, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Trimurti Chowk, Mulmula, P.S. Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vinayak Kurre, S/o. Late Sanjay Kumar Kurre, Aged About 3 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Purnima Kurre, W/o. Late Sanjay Kumar Kurre, R/o. At Sardha Bhantha P.S. Sarsiva, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Trimurti Chowk, Mulmula, P.S. Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chandram Kurre, S/o. Sagnu Ram Kurre, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. At Sardha Bhantha P.S. Sarsiva, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Trimurti Chowk, Mulmula, P.S. Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.09.11 17:25:25 +0530 2 5 - Sahodri Bai Kurre, W/o. Chandram Kurre, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. At Sardha Bhantha P.S. Sarsiva, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Trimurti Chowk, Mulmula, P.S. Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Kirtan Kumar Sidar @ Tingu, S/o. Bhushan Singh Sidar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Siriyagarh Rathapali, P.S. Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Driver Of Vehicle No. CG 12S-0933 2 - Sourabh Agrawal, S/o. Rajkumar Agrawal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Ward No. 1, Kharsia Road, P.S. Dabhara, District Janjgri Champa Chhattisgarh. Owner Of Vehicle No. CG.12S-0933 3 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shubham Complex, Ground Floor, Beside SBI Main Branch, Near Kevdabadi, Bus Stand Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of Vehicle No. CG.12S-0933 --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate & MAC No. 1084 of 2022 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Shubham Complex, Ground Floor, Beside S.B.I. (Main Branch) Near Kevadabadi, Bus Stand Raigarh, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) ---Appellant 3 Versus 1 - Purnima Kurrey, Wd/o. Late Sanjay Kumar Kurrey, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Sardha, B Hantha, P.S. Sarsinwa, Distt. Balauda Bazar (C.G.) Hal Mukam Trimurti Chowk Mulmula, P.S. Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 2 - Riya Kumari Kuirrey, D/o. Sanjay Kumar Kurrey, Aged About 5 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Purnima Kurre, W/o. Late Sanjay Kumar Kurre, R/o. Sardha, B Hantha, P.S.Sarsinwa, Distt. Balauda Bazar (C.G.) Hal Mukam Trimurti Chowk Mulmula P.S. Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 3 - Vinayak Kurrey, S/o. Late Sanjay Kumar Kurrey, Aged About 3 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Purnima Kurre, W/o. Late Sanjay Kumar Kurre, R/o. Sardha, B Hantha, P.S.Sarsinwa, Distt. Balauda Bazar (C.G.) Hal Mukam Trimurti Chowk Mulmula P.S. Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 4 - Chandram Kurrey, S/o. Sagun Ram Kurrey, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Sardha, B Hantha, P.S.Sarsinwa, Distt. Balauda Bazar (C.G.) Hal Mukam Trimurti Chowk Mulmula P.S. Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 5 - Sahodari Bai Kurrey, W/o. Chandram Kurrey, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Sardha, B Hantha, P.S.Sarsinwa, Distt. Balauda Bazar (C.G.) Hal Mukam Trimurti Chowk Mulmula P.S. Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Claimants/Applicants) 4 6 - Kirtan Kumar Sadar @ Tigu, S/o. Bhushan Singh Sidar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Siriyagarh, Rathapali, P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) …...(Driver). 7 - Saurabh Agrawal, S/o. Rajkumar Agrawal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Ward No.1 Kharsia Road, P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir -Champa (C.G.)…..(Owner) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 10.09.2025 1. Since MAC No.1070/2022 preferred by the claimants and MAC No.1084/2022 preferred by the insurance company both were arising out of the impugned award dated 27.06.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, they have been clubbed together, heard together and decided of by this common judgment. 2. The claimants seeks enhancement of the amount under award whereas the insurance company seeks exoneration from its liability to pay compensation. 5 3. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record for the death of Sanjay Kumar Kurre, aged about 32 years, at the time of incident, who was working as driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month proceeded to grant compensation to the extent of Rs. 12,86,600/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 4. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company in MAC No.1084/2022 would firstly submit that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid licence as he was having learning licence and secondly, the vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 5. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MAC No.1070/2022 would submit that the amount under award is not just and proper, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 6 Appeal by the Insurance Company i.e. MAC No.1084/2022 7. The first ground is that the Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the driver did have a learning licence to drive the offending vehicle. The Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Others 1 has clearly held in para 110 : (viii) that if the vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner’s licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. In view of the aforesaid decision, the appellant/insurance company cannot escape its liability merely on the ground that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by a person having learner’s licence. As such, the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company is rejected. 8. The next ground is that on the date of accident i.e. on 07.06.2021, the vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate. However, the Tribunal has given the benefit of circular of the Central Government dated 26.03.2021 by which it has been held that during corona pandemic period, the permit and fitness of the vehicle which has been expired on or before 01.02.2020, the validity of the same has been extended till 30.06.2021. Therefore, the permit and fitness of the offending 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 7 vehicle is covered by that circular and in that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in second ground also, which has been raised by learned counsel for the insurance company. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Appeal by the Claimants i.e. MAC No.1070/2022 9. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Sanjay Kumar Kurre to be Rs.6,000/- per month, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for skilled labour, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.9,280/- per month, which comes to Rs. 1,11,360/- 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 2, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors3 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 4 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 8 Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 9,280 x 12 = Rs. 1,11,360/- Add future prospects @ 40% Rs. 72,000 + Rs. 28,800 = Rs. 1,00,800/- Rs. 1,11,360 + Rs. 44,544 = Rs. 1,55,904/- Deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses Rs. 1,00,800 – 25,200 = Rs.75,600/- Rs. 1,55,904 – 38,976 = Rs.1,16,928/- Multiplier of 16 Rs. 12,09,600/- Rs. 18,70,848/- Loss of spousal consortium Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- Loss of filial consortium Nil Rs. 44,000 x 2 = Rs. 88,000/- Loss of parental consortium Nil Rs. 44,000 x 2 = Rs. 88,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- Total Rs. 12,86,600/- Rs. 21,23,848/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 12,86,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 21,23,848/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 9 12,86,600/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 8,37,248/-. The concerned respondent i.e. insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. In the result, the appeal of the insurance company i.e. MAC No.1084/2022 is dismissed and the appeal of the claimants i.e. MAC No.1070/2022 is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 13. Copy of this judgment be sent to the claimants for information & necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok