Page No.1 of 4 IN MAC-1275-2022 2025:CGHC:41536 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1275 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 20.06.2022, passed in Claim Case No.46/2021 (Punita Bai and others v. Ramjan Khan and other] by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG)] The New India Assurance Company Limited (Wrongly Mention Insurance) By Branch Manager, Branch Office, 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Civil Line Police Station, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Through Authorized Signatory Manager T. P. Claim Hub, Bilaspur (C.G.) ........(N. A. No. 3) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Punita Bai Wd/o Late Ganesh Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Gobaripat, Tehsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimants) 2 - Minor Sumer Porte S/o Late Ganesh Singh Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Next Friend Mother Punita Bai Respondent No. 1, R/o Village Gobaripat, Tehsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Minor Simran D/o Late Ganesh Singh Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Next Friend Mother Punita Bai Respondent No. 1, R/o Village Gobaripat, Tehsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Shanti Bai Porte Wd/o Faguram Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Gobaripat, Tehsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Ramjan Khan S/o Anwar Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o Sohagpur,p.S. Nipaniya, Dsitrict - Sahdol (M.P.) (Driver) 6 - Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Suresh Prasad Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Sohagpur,p.S. Nipaniya, Dsitrict - Sahdol (M.P.) (Owner) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. BN Nande, Advocate For Respondents No.1-4 : None through served. For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Ms. Rashika Soni, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN MAC-1275-2022 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 18.08.2025 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 award dated 20.06.2022, passed in Claim Case No.46/2021 (Punita Bai and others v. Ramjan Khan and other] by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) (for short the “MACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the respondents No.01-4/claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.18,08,281/- has been awarded to them alongwith interest @ 7.5% PA from the date of registration of claim till its actual realization on account of death of Ganesh Singh in the accident occurred on 19.11.2020, which amount is held to be payable by the appellant-Insurance Company herein. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would make sole submission that the multiplier of 17 adopted by the learned MACT is on the higher side, as the deceased was aged about more than 30 years, therefore, the multiplier of 16 ought to have been adopted. As such, the compensation to the tune of Rs.18,08,281/- is liable to be reduced. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.05 & 06 would support the impugned award and prays for dismissal Page No.3 of 4 IN MAC-1275-2022 of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, with regard to the age of the deceased, the claimants in Para-07 of their claim application has mentioned that the age of the deceased was 29 years at the time of accident, to which, though the appellant- Insurance company filed their written statement through its advocate, but did not taken any specific plea that the age of the deceased was more than 30 years and simply denied the averment of the claim application with regard to the age of the deceased to be 29 years. However, the documents filed alongwith the claim application i.e. PM report (Ex.P/03), merg intimation (Ex.P/04) and Naksha panchnama (Ex.P/05) all goes to show that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 30 years and, on the basis of which, the learned MACT proceeded to hold that the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident and adopted the multiplier of 17, which in the considered opinion of this Court, has rightly been adopted in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1 . As such, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned MACT while exercising jurisdiction under Section 173 of the MV Act. 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 Page No.4 of 4 IN MAC-1275-2022 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the appellant-Insurance company herein. The appellant-Insurance company is at liberty to recover the amount of cost from their concerned officer who has taken the decision to prefer this appeal before this Court against the award dt. 20.06.2022. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if