1 2025:CGHC:55657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1593 of 2023 Smt. Chintibai W/o Late Gangaram Jurri, Aged About 28 Years R/o. Barethin Bahara, Tahsil Narharpur, District Kankere Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - Maksudanlal Dhruv S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Dhruv, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Dugali, Police Station Dugali, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Cg. 05/6784) 2 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Through Manager, Regional Officer-R.K. Plaza Panchpedi Naka Ring Road -01, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.17 12:10:11 +0530 2 MAC No. 146 of 2023 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Regional Office, R. K. Plaza Pachpedi Naka, Ring Road -1, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh Policy No. 192000/31/20191955 (Validity From 28.04.2018 To 27.04.2019)(Insurer) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Chinti Bai Wd/o Late Gangaram Jurri Aged About 28 Years R/o Barethin Bahra, Tahsil Narharpur (Claimant), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Maksudanlal Dhruv S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Dhruv Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Dugli, Police Station Dugli, Tahsil Nagri, District - Dhamtari , Chhattisgarh, (Owner-Cum-Driver Of Vehicle Jeep C.G. 05/6784)(Non-Application No.1) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 14.11.2025 1. Since both of these appeals have arisen out of common accident, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 3 2. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) have been preferred challenging the impugned award dated 10/10/2022 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 36/2019 whereby compensatoin of Rs. 5,05,600/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant and liability of payment has been fastened upon the owner of the offending vehicle with the direction of ‘pay and recover’ to the Insurance Company. MAC/1593/2023 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal whereas MAC/146/2023 has been preferred by the Insurance Company for reducing the compensation amount. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MAC/1593/2023, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- whereas it ought to be Rs. 8,060/- as per the minimum wages notification prevelant at that time, therefore, the compensation amount may suitably be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC/146/2023, would submit that as per the Aadhar card of the deceased, his age would 62 years and multiplier of 7 4 would be applicable whereas the Claims Tribunal has relied upon the postmortem report and held the age of the deceased to be 55 years and applied the multiplier of 11, as such, the amount of compensation is liable to be reduced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Saroj and Others v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. and Others1, following the decisions of various High Courts on the question as to whether Aadhar Card is sufficient proof of a person’s age, proceeded to accept the contention of the claimants with respect to the determination of age, based on the School Leaving Certificate. 7. Thus, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Saroj (supra), it can safely be held that the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased to be 55 years as per the postmortem report as the Aadhar Cade cannot be made a basis for determination of a person’s age. As such, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 1 2024 SCC Online SC 3038 5 8. So far as the appeal of the claimant is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-, however, looking to the minimum wages notification prevelant at that time, the monthly income of the deceased ought to be Rs. 8,060/-. 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is computing the compensation as mentioned below :- Sr. No. Heads Compensatoin awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 6,000/- x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 8,060/- x 12 = Rs. 96,720/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 10% i.e. Rs. 7,200/- = Rs. 79,200/- (+) 10% i.e. Rs. 9,672/- = Rs. 1,06,392/- 3. Deduction (-) ½ = Rs. 39,600/- (-) ½ = Rs. 53,196/- 4. Multiplier (x) 11 = Rs. 4,35,600/- (x) 11 = Rs. 5,85,156/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 44,000/- Total Rs. 5,05,600/- Rs. 6,62,156/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,05,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 6,62,156/-. Hence, the claimant is held entitled for an additional amount of 6 Rs. 1,56,556/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, recover it from the owner of the vehicle, as directed by the Claims Tribunal. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 28/02/2019 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, MAC/1593/2023 filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above whereas MAC/146/2023 stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneets