1 2025:CGHC:52413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 884 of 2022 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Assistant Manager, Having Office At 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Maheshwari Wd/o Late Shivbhajan Aged About 30 Years Respondent No. 2 To 5 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Maheshwari, All R/o Village Karmi, P.S. Kusmi, Tahsil Shankargarh, Present Address Fundurdihari, Muktipara, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Kiran D/o Shivbhajan Aged About 9 Years Respondent No. 2 To 5 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Maheshwari, All R/o Village Karmi, P.S. Kusmi, Tahsil Shankargarh, Present Address Fundurdihari, Muktipara, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 3 - Karan 3 Years S/o Late Shivbhajan, Respondent No. 2 To 5 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Maheshwari, All R/o Village Karmi, P.S. Kusmi, Tahsil Shankargarh, Present Address Fundurdihari, Muktipara, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.10.29 11:33:56 +0530 2 4 - Ku. Karishma D/0 Late Shivbhajan Aged About 3 Years Respondent No. 2 To 5 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Maheshwari, All R/o Village Karmi, P.S. Kusmi, Tahsil Shankargarh, Present Address Fundurdihari, Muktipara, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kartik S/o Shivbhajan Respondent No. 2 To 5 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Maheshwari, All R/o Village Karmi, P.S. Kusmi, Tahsil Shankargarh, Present Address Fundurdihari, Muktipara, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sugdu Kasiyat S/o Late Machhariya Kasiyat Aged About 53 Years Respondent No. 2 To 5 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Maheshwari, All R/o Village Karmi, P.S. Kusmi, Tahsil Shankargarh, Present Address Fundurdihari, Muktipara, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Sohari W/o Sugdu Kasiyat Aged About 50 Years Respondent No. 2 To 5 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Maheshwari, All R/o Village Karmi, P.S. Kusmi, Tahsil Shankargarh, Present Address Fundurdihari, Muktipara, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 8 - Rajeshwar Singh S/o Sukhdeo Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tathi Jhariya, P.S. Samripaat, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 9 - Damodar Soni S/o Ramchandra Soni Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Kusmi(Masjid Para) P.S. Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 7 : Mr. Shubham Tiwari on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocates 3 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 28.10.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 20/05/2022 passed by learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 84/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 16,40,280 in favour of respondents No. 1 to 7/claimants for the death of Shivbhajan, aged about 33 years, who worked as a Labourer and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Cross Objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC read with Rule 242(3) of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 has also been filed by respondents No. 1 to 7/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company) would make a two fold submission. Firstly, that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness to ply the vehicle on the date of the accident and 4 secondly, that the FIR (Ex. P/2) was initially registered against unknown vehicle and later on, the offending vehicle herein bearing Registration No. CG 15 AD 0109 was implicated and FIR was registered against the Driver i.e. respondent No. 8 herein, therefore, the appellant (Insurance Company) is not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 7/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not just and proper as monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 7,000/- whereas it ought to be Rs. 8,600/- as per the minimum wages notification. Moreover, the amount awarded under Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate ought to be increased by 10% and the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,05,000/- under loss of consortium whereas it ought to be Rs. 3,08,000/-, as such, the cross-objection be allowed the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Consideration on Appeal :- 6. The first ground taken by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the offending vehicle 5 did not have valid permit and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants, however, the Claims Tribunal has rejected this ground by clearly recording a finding that the Insurance Company has failed to prove this ground by leading evidence in this regard, which is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record as the Insurance Company has not examined any person from the RTO to prove that the offending vehicle did not have valid permit on the date of the accident. Therefore, this argument has rightly been rejected by the Claims Tribunal. 7. The second and last ground taken by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that initially, FIR (Ex. P/2) was registered against unknown person but later on, it was registered against the Driver i.e. respondent No. 8 herein and the offending vehicle was falsely implicated. True it is that initially FIR (Ex. P/2) was registered against unknown person but upon investigation, it was revealed that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the Driver i.e. respondent No. 8 herein on account of which the accident happened and offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC was registered against him and he was charge-sheeted for the said offence. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal is absolutely 6 justified in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company. Consideration on Cross-Objection :- 8. So far as the cross-objection filed by respondents No. 1 to 7/claimants is concerned, true it is that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- whereas it ought to be Rs. 8,600/- as per the minimum wage notification prevalent on the date of the accident. Moreover, under the heads of Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- each whereas it should be Rs. 16,500/- each and further the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,05,000/- under loss of consortium whereas it ought to be Rs. 3,08,000/-. 9. 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 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 7,000 x 12 = Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 8,600/- x 12 = Rs. 1,03,200/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 33,600/- = Rs. 1,17,600/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 41,280/- = Rs. 1,44,480/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/5 i.e. Rs. 23,520/- = Rs. 94,080/- (-) 1/5 i.e. Rs. 28,896/- = Rs. 1,15,584/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs. 15,05,280/- (x) 16 = Rs. 1,15,584/- 5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,05,000/- Rs. 44,000 x 7 = Rs. 3,08,000/- Total Rs. 16,40,280/- Rs. 21,90,344/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 16,40,280/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 21,90,344/-. Hence, the respondents No. 1 to 7/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,50,064/-. Appellant (Insurance Company) is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 18/11/2020 till its realization. Rest 8 of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, the instant appeal filed by the appellant (Insurance Company) is hereby dismissed whereas the cross-objection filed by respondents No. 1 to 7/claimants is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet