1 2025:CGHC:54156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1082 of 2022 United India Insurance Company Limited South Goa Code No. 120600, Thrtough Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 1st Floor L.I.C. Building Magarpara Road, Bilaspur Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Madhuri Pandey W/o Sharad Chandra Pandey Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill. B-62, Phase 2, Sagar Homes, P.S. Sakari, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Sharad Chandra Pandey S/o Hanumann Prasad Pandey Aged About 51 Years R/o Vill. B-62, Phase 2, Sagar Homes, P.S. Sakari, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Uday B Nagvekar S/o Babli Nagvekar Aged About 58 Years R/o H. No. 902 Juvari, P.O. Goa Belha Tiswadi Goa (Driver) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.07 11:25:48 +0530 2 4 - Smt. Gayatri Bhangale Through Ajit Redkar H.No. 3080 Marlem Borda Salsate, Goa, South Goa 403602 (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Advocate MAC No. 319 of 2023 1 - Smt. Madhuri Pandey W/o Sharad Chandra Pandey Aged About 50 Years R/o Village B-62, Phase-2, Sagar Homes, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Sharad Chandra Pandey S/o Hanuman Prasad Pandey Aged About 51 Years R/o Village B-62, Phase-2, Sagar Homes, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Uday B Nagvekar S/o Babli Nagvekar Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. 902. Juwari, Post Goa Belha Tiswadi, Goa (Driver Of Bus No. G.A.-06-T-4116) 2 - Smt. Gayatri Bhangle C/o Ajeet Redkar, R/o House No. 3080 Marlem Borda, Salset Goa, South Goa 403602 (Owner Of Bus No. G.A.-06-T-4116) 3 3 - The Branch Manager The United India Insurance Company Limited South Goa Code No. 120600 Through The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, In Front Of I.S.I. Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Bus No. G.A.-06-T-4116) Policy No. 1206003117p115218582 Insured From Dated 27-01-2018 To 26-01-2019 ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 06.11.2025 1. Since common question of law and fact are involved in both of these appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. In both the appeals, challenge has been made to the impugned award dated 22/07/2022 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 324/2019 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 31,70,000/- in favour of the claimants for the death of Karunakar Pandey, aged 4 about 26 years, who worked as a Clerk in IT and Employed Social Science College, Pendari and the liability of payment of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 3. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC/1082/2022, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company as the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of the accident and at the best, the principle of pay and recover would apply, as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MAC/319/2023, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in granting Rs. 40,000 x 2 = Rs. 80,000/- to the claimants under loss of consortium whereas it be increased. Moreover, Rs. 15,000/- each has been granted under loss of estate and funeral expenses which should be Rs. 16,500/- each. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be 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. 5 6. So far as the the appeal of appellant/Insurance Company i.e. MAC/1082/2022 is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding in paragraph 28 of the impugned award that though the appellant/Insurance Company has raised a plea that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of the accident, but they have not led any oral evidence to prove the same and they have neither brought any document on record from the concerned RTO Office to prove that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation, which in my considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any merit in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. 7. Now, so far as the appeal of the appellants/claimants i.e. MAC/319/2023, is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has only questioned the impugned award on the point of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. 6 8. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 3,60,000/- and thereafter, deducted ½ income towards his personal expenses and applied multiplier of 17, looking to the fact that deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of accident, and thereafter, granted Rs. 15,000/- each under loss of estate as well as funeral expenses and further granted Rs. 40,000 x 2 = Rs. 80,000/- to the two claimants under loss of parental consortium, thereby, granting a total sum of Rs. 31,70,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants, which in my considered opinion, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, both of these appeals, being devoid of merits, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet