Page No.1 of 6 IN MAC-867-2022 2025:CGHC:53025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 867 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 13.05.2022, passed in Claim Case No.241/2020 (Toran Netam and others v. Rahul Yadav and others) by the 4th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG)] Branch Manager, HDFC Agro General Insurance Company Ltd. Address - Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Truck No. Mh-40 Bl 3124) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Toran Netam S/o Tijau Netam Aged About 55 Years R/o Anjora Dhaba, Thana Pulgaom, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2 - Smt. Shakun Netam W/o Toran Netam Aged About 50 Years R/o Anjora Dhaba, Thana Pulgaom, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 3 - Durga Prasad Netam S/o Toran Netam Aged About 17 Years Minor Representing Through His Father Toran Netam, R/o Anjora Dhaba, Thana Pulgaom, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 4 - Rahul Yadav S/o Hari Ram Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Lakhanadon, Thana - Lakhnadom, District - Seoni , Madhyapradesh. (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. Mh-40 Bl 3124) 5 - Vishal Baghel S/o Sher Singh Baghel Aged About 22 Years R/o - Thakrapadi, Nagpur, Maharashtra. (Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. Mh-40 Bl 3124) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondent No.1-3: Mr. PK Dhurandhar, Advocate SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 6 IN MAC-867-2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 30.10.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant- Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dt. 13.05.2022, passed in Claim Case No.241/2020 (Toran Netam and others v. Rahul Yadav and others) by the 4th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.13,74,600/- upon them. 2. Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant- Insurance Company, as neither the owner nor the driver of the offending vehicle had produced the driving license. As such, since the offending vehicle was plied in breach of the policy condition, therefore, the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal while fastening the liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation is liable to be set aside and present appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.01 & 03/claimants would support the impugned Page No.3 of 6 IN MAC-867-2022 award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. He further argued that he has filed cross-appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC r/w Rule 242(3) of the CG Motor Vehicle Rules 1994 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that the learned claims Tribunal has erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.8000/-, whereas as per minimum wages it ought to have been taken as Rs.9120/-. Therefore, the cross-appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record clearly recorded a finding that mere issuance of notice to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle will not exonerate them from their liability to prove its defence that at the time of accident in question the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to ply the vehicle. Even otherwise, there is no evidence available on record to show that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license. Further, from the perusal of the record it is also clear that the appellant-Insurance Company did not take any steps before Page No.4 of 6 IN MAC-867-2022 the Claims Tribunal to prove the said fact that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant- Insurance Company by recording correct findings, which are neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the appellant- Insurance Company and same deserves to be dismissed. 6. So far as the cross-appeal filed by the respondents no.01 to 03/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, it is quite clear that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.8000/-, whereas as per minimum wages it ought to have been taken as Rs.9120/-. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 7. Accordingly, 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 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 Page No.5 of 6 IN MAC-867-2022 Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.8000 x 12 = Rs.96,000/- Rs.9120 x 12 = Rs.1,09,440/- 2. Deduction (-) 1/2 = Rs.48,000/- (-) 1/2 = Rs.54,720/- 3. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs.8,64,000/- (x) 18 = Rs. Rs.9,84,960/- 4. Future Prospect (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.3,45,600/-) = Rs.12,09,600/- (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.3,93,984/-) = Rs.13,78,944/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs.44,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/- Rs.44,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/- Total Rs.13,74,600/- Rs.15,43,944/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.13,74,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,43,944/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.13,74,600/-, the appellant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,69,344/-. The respondent- 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. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.6 of 6 IN MAC-867-2022 Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit and the cross-appeal filed by the respondents No.01 to 03/claimants stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if