1 2025:CGHC:43399 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2199 of 2019 1 - Ganesh Manhare S/o. Moolchand Manhare Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Village Balbhadra Ward, Opposite Water Tank, Police Station/ Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deokunwar W/o. Ganesh Manhare Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village Balbhadra Ward, Opposite Water Tank, Police Station / Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Aarti D/o. Ganesh Manhare Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Village Balbhadra Ward, Opposite Water Tank, Police Station / Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Kamal Kumar Dhruw (Dead/deleted) Through Lrs (Driver Of Auto No. Cg22ab 9705)) Resident Of Village Kholwa, Tahsil And Police Station Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 1.1 - 1a- Santoshi Bai Wd/o. Kamal Kumar Dhruw Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Kholwa, Tahsil And Police Station Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - 1b- Minor Ku. Usha Dhruw D/o. Kamal Kumar Dhruw Aged About 15 Years Through Guardian Mother Santoshi Bai Dhruw, Resident Of Village Kholwa, Tahsil And Police Station Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 1.3 - 1c- Minor Ku. Mamta Dhruw D/o. Kamal Kumar Dhruw Aged About 11 Years Through Guardian Mother Santoshi Bai Dhruw, Resident Of Village Kholwa, Tahsil And Police Station Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 1.4 - 1d- Minor Domendra Kumar Dhruw S/o.Kamal Kumar Dhruw Aged About 12 Years Through Guardian Mother Santoshi Bai Dhruw, Resident Of Village Kholwa, Tahsil And 2 Police Station Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 1.5 - 1e- Minor Pintu Kumar S/o. Kamal Kumar Dhruw Aged About 2 Years Through Guardian Mother Santoshi Bai Dhruw, Resident Of Village Kholwa, Tahsil And Police Station Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 1.6 - 1f- Madan Singh Dhruw S/o. Budh Ram Dhruw Aged About 69 Years Resident Of Village Kholwa, Tahsil And Police Station Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 1.7 - 1g- Ram Bai Dhruw W/o. Madan Singh Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Village Kholwa, Tahsil And Police Station Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Meena Manikpuri W/o. Dhanveer Das Manikpuri Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Near Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Naya Ganj Ward, Naharpara, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ( Regd. Owner Of Auto No. Cg 22 Ab 9705), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. R.K. Plaza, Pachpedi Naka, Ring Road No. -1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Auto No. Cg 22 Ab 9705), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 2310 of 2019 1 - Through Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Address- R.K. Plaza Puchpari Naka Ring Road No. 1 Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Auto No. C.G.22.A.B 9705)..............Respondent, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Ganesh Manhare S/o Mulchand Manhare Resident Gram Balbhadra Ward In Front Of Pani Tanki Thana And Tahsil Bhatapara District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deo Kumar W/o Ganesh Manahare Resident Gram Balbhadra Ward In Front Of Pani Tanki Thana And Tahsil Bhatapara District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh - Ku. Aarti D/o Ganesh Manahare Resident Gram Balbhadra Ward In Front Of Pani Tanki Thana And Tahsil Bhatapara District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4- Kamal Kumar Dhruv (Deceased) Through Legal Guardian- 3 4.1 - (A) Santoshi Bai W/o Late Kamal Kumar Dhruv Aged About 40 Years Resident Gram Kholva, Tehsil And Thana Bhatapara District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4.2 - (B) Minor Ku Usha Dhruv, D/o Kamal Kumar Dhruv Aged About 15 Years Through Mother Santoshi Bai Dhruv, Resident Gram Kholva, Tehsil And Thana Bhatapara District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4.3 - (C) Minor Ku. Mamta Dhruv D/o Kamal Kumar Dhruv, Aged About 11 Years Through Mother Santoshi Bai Dhruv, Resident Gram Kholva, Tehsil And Thana Bhatapara District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4.4 - (D) Domendra Kumar Dhruv S/o Kamal Kumar Dhruv Aged About 12 Years Through Mother Santoshi Bai Dhruv, Resident Gram Kholva, Tehsil And Thana Bhatapara District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4.5 - (E) Pintu Kumar S/o Kamal Kumar Dhruv Aged About 2 Years Through Mother Santoshi Bai Dhruv, Resident Gram Kholva, Tehsil And Thana Bhatapara District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4.6 - (F) Madan Singh Dhruv S/o Budhram Dhruv, Aged About 69 Years Resident Gram Kholva, Tehsil And Thana Bhatapara District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4.7 - (G) Ram Bai Dhruv D/o Madan Singh Aged About 65 Years Resident Gram Kholva, Tehsil And Thana Bhatapara District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh............Claimant (Driver Of The Auto No. C.G 22.A.B 9705), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Meena Manikpuri W/o Dhanvir Das Manikpuri Resident Near Sharswati Shishu Mandir, New Ganj Ward Naharpara, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Auto No. C.G. 22.A.B 9705).............Claimant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. S. P. Sannat on behalf of Mr. Basant Kaiwarthya, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 4 26/08/2025 These two appeals are arising out of award dated 22.07.2019 passed in Claim Case No. H-29/2015 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara, CG, hence they are being heard and decided by this common order. Parties are referred to their status as per tribunal. 2. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,72,600/- against a claim of Rs. 22,15,000/- filed under Section 166 of the MV Act on account of death of deceased Sanjay @ Sanju on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Auto bearing registration No. CG 22 AB 9705 which was driven by the deceased Kamal Kumar Dhruv who died during the pendency of the claim application and his legal representatives was brought on record before the learned claims tribunal. The offending vehicle was owned by owner Smt. Meena Manikpuri and insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 3. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation whereas the insurance company has filed the appeal for exoneration from payment of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the amount of compensation is on the lower side which requires suitable enhancement. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 5. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the offending vehicle was not permit and therefore, there is a violation of the insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company may be exonerated from payment of compensation. 6. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha on behalf the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the insurance company has not led any evidence to prove its defence therefore, the appeal of the insurance company may be dismissed. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded has just therefore, the appeal of the claimants may be dismissed. 7. The first question before this Court would like to deal is to whether the just compensation has been awarded or not. Considering the deceased was found to be aged 5 about 28 years, he was egg seller running a shop. 8. Having thus considering the all evidence available on record, this Court is inclined to recomputes the compensation. In light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi (supra); Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- S. No. Description Amount 1. Monthly income 6,000/- 2. 40% Future prospect 2400/- 3. Total Monthly Income (6000+2400) 8400/- 4. Total Yearly Income (8400x12) 1,00,800/- 5. 1/2 Deduction for personal expenses of deceased 50,400/- 6. Net income 50,400/- 7. Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency 8,56,800/- 8. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 9. Loss of estate 15,000/- 10. Parental and Filial consortium 80,000/- Total compensation 9,66,800/- 9. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 6,72,625/- awarded by learned tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 9,66,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,72,625/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,94,175/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this appeal i.e. 26.11.2019. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 10. This lead to the second submissions as to whether the insurance company was able to prove its defence. Admittedly, the insurance company has not led any 6 evidence to substantiate the pleadings. An absence of any pleading, this Court is unable to hold that insurance company was able to prove the defence which has been put forth by this Court. The arguments was advanced by learned Mr. Gupta that the owner had admitted that the offending vehicle was not holding any valid and permit. Though the insurance company ought to have called his witness to prove the conditions of the policy, the witness ought to have been subject to cross examined even any investigator was not examined, therefore, his contention is rejected. 11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days from the date of received of this order. After deposit 1,00,000 (each) shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of one year in the name of appellant Nos. 1 & 2; Rs. 50,000/- shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of one year in the name of appellant No. 3; and remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No. 2 through bank transaction/account payee cheque. 12. Accordingly, MAC No. 2199 of 2019 filed by appellants/claimants is partly allowed and MAC No. 2310 of 2019 filed by the insurance company is dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan