1 MAC No. 495 of 2022 2025:CGHC:51120 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 495 of 2022  Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Magma House 24 Park Street Kolkata 700016, Local Nearest Branch Office, Branch Office Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited 3, New Ground Floor N.H. Road, Rajkumar Office Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1.Smt. Ulaso W/o Late Kunjram, Aged About 48 Years; 2.Sushila D/o Late Kunjram, Aged About 19 Years; 3.Baleshwar S/o Late Kunjram, Aged About 18 Years; All are R/o village & Post Uparkachhar, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 4.Jaimati Bai D/o Late Kunjram, Aged About 25 Years, W/o Kaleshwar Ram, R/o Behind Of Balaji Mandir, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.10.15 10:38:07 +0530 2 MAC No. 495 of 2022 5.Ramesh Kumar Shukla, S/o Tarashankar Shukla R/o Bhagwanpur, Ambikapur Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner). 6.Suresh Kumar Shukla S/o Tarashankar Shukla, Aged About 45 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Subhash Nagar Ward No.1 Sanapara Gali No. 2, P.S. Gandhinagar, Ambikapur Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Driver). ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 :- Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 14.10.2025 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 18.11.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 44/2020 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the claimants’ application for grant of compensation and awarded a sum of 18,07,240/- ₹ 3 MAC No. 495 of 2022 as compensation along with interest for death of Basant Pradhan. 2.Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, would submit that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have been ½ share ought to have been deducted from the compensation amount. He would also submit that the as per the Aadhaar Card of the deceased his age should be taken as 27 years instead of 25 years and, such, the impugned award is liable to be modified on the aforesaid ground. 3.Mr. Divyanand Patel, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4, would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 amount towards the personal expenses from the compensation amount in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors1. He would also 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 MAC No. 495 of 2022 submit that as per the postmortem report the age of the deceased 25 years which has rightly been taken by the Claims Tribunal while passing the impugned award. 4.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and gone through the records meticulously. 5.On careful perusal of the case would show that the claimants are the widow mother, two brothers and one married sister, therefore, in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) the Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 share towards personal expenses while granting compensation to the claimants. Furthermore, age of the deceased has rightly been taken as 25 years per the postmortem report and on that basis multiplier of 18 has also rightly been applied by the Claims Tribunal. As such, the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on 5 MAC No. 495 of 2022 record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the records. 6.In view of above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit