1 2025:CGHC:57769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1496 of 2023 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- G.E. Road, Chouhan Estate First Floor, Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) …..(Non-Applicant No. 4) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Mamta Lekhwani, Wd/o. Late Revat Kumar Lekhwani, Aged About 43 Years, R/o- Village Ward No. 26, Station Road, Polsay Para, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Applicant No. 1) 2 - Anshu Lekhwani, D/o. Late Revat Kumar Lekhwani, Aged About 20 Years, R/o- Village Ward No. 26, Station Road, Polsay Para, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Applicant No. 2) 3 - Ishika Lekhwani, D/o. Late Revat Kumar Lekhwani, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through Her Mother Smt. Mamta Lekhwani (Respondent No. 1) R/o- Village Ward No. 26, Station Road, Polsay Para, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Applicant No. 3) 4 - Omprakash Deshmukh, S/o. Kartik Ram Deshmukh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o. House No. 112 Deepak Nagar Durg, Tah. And ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.11.27 16:51:52 +0530 2 District- Durg (C.G.) Through Rajesh Singh, S/o- Rajnarayan Singh, R/o- 134, Street No. 6, Deepak Nagar, Durg, Tah. And District- Durg (C.G.) (Driver) (Non-Applicant No. 1) 5 - Rajesh Singh, S/o. Rajnarayan Singh, R/o- 134, Street No. 6, Deepak Nagar, Durg, Tah. And District- Durg (Driver) (Non- Applicant No. 2) 6 - G. Ramanna, R/o. House No. 171, Ward No. 21, Durga Nagar, Camp i, Bhilai, Tah. And District Durg (C.G.) (Insured Person Of The Vehicle) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. P.R.Patankar, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 27.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 12.05.2023 passed by learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in MACT Case No.220/2021, by which the claim application of the 3 claimants has been allowed while granting compensation to the tune of Rs.30,87,735/- along-with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company, would submit that the work/business done by the deceased is being continued by the claimants, therefore, they are not entitled for compensation for loss of dependency and furthermore, the multiplier of 13 would be applied instead of 14 as the deceased was 45 years old; therefore, the amount of compensation be reduced and the appeal be allowed in part. 3. Mr. P.R.Patankar, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 3 would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and he would submit that just & proper compensation has been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, the appeal of insurance company is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 4 5. The plea that the business of deceased is being undertaken and continued by the claimants has not been taken expressly in the written statement and furthermore the multiplier of 13 would be applicable has also not been taken in the written statement, therefore, in absence of pleading and evidence, I do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal, the same deserves to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok