1 2025:CGHC:50668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 266 of 2022 1 - Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. (Wrongly Mention Chalomandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd.) Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Vinayak Netralaya, Vyapar Vihar Main Road, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattigarh. (Insurer) --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Santoshi Bai Binjhwar W/o Mulchand Binjhwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Vidhyansar, Post Bahtarai, P.S. Sakti, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mulchand Binjhwar S/o Late Mangluram Binjhwar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Vidhyansar, Post Bahtarai, P.S. Sakti, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 3 - Santosh Kumar Kaushik @ Tilli S/o Bhagirathi Aged About 30 Years Working As Driver, R/o Village Bahtarai, P.S. Sakri, Tehsi Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.10.13 16:52:02 +0530 2 Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver Tractor No. C.G. 10 Ac 7981). 4 - Harishankar @ Harishchandra Vaishnav S/o Bharatlal Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Vindhyasar, P.S. Sakti, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Tractor No C.G. 10 Ac 7981). --- Respondents MAC No. 698 of 2021 1 - Smt. Santoshi Bai Binjhwar W/o Mulchand Binjhwar, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Vindhyasagar, Post Bahtarai, Police Station Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mulchand Binjhwar, S/o Late Mangluram Binjhwar, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Vindhyasagar, Post Bahtarai, Police Station Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants versus 1 - Santosh Kumar Kaushik @ Tilli Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhagirathi, Occupation Driver, R/o Village Bahtarai, Police Station Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of Offending Tractor No. C.G.-10-Ac-7981), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 2 - Harishankar @ Harishchandra Vaishnav, S/o Bharatlal, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Vindhyasagar, Police Station Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of Offending Tractor No. C.G.-10-Ac-7981), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office, Vyapar Vihar Main Road, Near Vinayak Netralaya, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh........(Policy No. 3380/01555510/000/00 Insured From 26-03-2019 To 25-03-2020), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No.266/2022 For Appellant/insurance company : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2/claimants : Ms. Pranauti Das, Advocate on behalf of Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate MAC No.698/2021 For Appellants/claimants : Ms. Pranauti Das, Advocate on behalf of Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent No.3/insurance company : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate 4 (Single Bench) Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 10/10/2025 1. This order shall govern the disposal of MAC No.266 of 2022 and MAC No.698 of 2021. 2. Both the appeals have been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the award dated 31.8.2021 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.913/2019, whereby the Claims Tribunal has granted compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.10,17,200 along with interest @ 9% per annum for death of Manish Kumar by fastening liability upon the insurance company to pay first and thereafter recover. 3. The impugned award has been questioned on behalf of the insurance company in MAC No.266/2022 seeking modification of the order of pay and recover as held by the Claims Tribunal in paragraph 41, but, it has not been 5 incorporated in the operative portion of the impugned award, whereas the claimants in MAC No.698/2021 seek enhancement in the amount of compensation granted vide the impugned award. 4. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that principle of first pay and recover has been invoked by the Claims Tribunal, but, it has not been incorporated in operative portion of the impugned award. 5. Ms. Pranauti Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that monthly income of the deceased should be taken as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions and gone through the record minutely. 7. The Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the principle of first pay and thereafter recover it from owner is in 6 terms of insurance policy. Also, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 558, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants first and, thereafter, entitled to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, in my considered opinion, the said finding is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to that extent. 8. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, having gone through the material available on record and having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds that appropriate monthly income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.8060 and, therefore, the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced. 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, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram 7 and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court computes the compensation as under: Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal (Rs.) Compensation awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1 Income 6,000 x 12 = 72,000 8060 x 12 = 96,720 2 Future Prospects 40% Add (+) 40%, i.e., 38,688 = 1,35,408 3 Deduction 1/2 (-) 1/2, i.e., 67,704 = 67,704 4 Multiplier 18 (x) 18 = 12,18,672 5 Loss of Estate 15,000 18,000 6 Funeral Expenses 15,000 18,000 7 Loss of Consortium 40,000 x 2 = 80,000 48,000 x 2 = 96,000 Grand Total = 10,17,200 13,50,672 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.10,17,200 awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.13,50,672. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,17,200, the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.3,33,472. The 8 insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till full realisation of the same. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Gopal