1 2025:CGHC:50996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1131 of 2025 1. Smt. Ram Kunwar Wd/o Amanat Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Village- Lata, Post- Amadand Pendra, Current Residence Village- Ameri, Thana And Tahsil - Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Sanju Kumar S/o Amanat Singh Aged About 17 Years Minor, Hence Through His Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Ram Kunwar Wd/o Late Amanat Singh, R/o Ward No. 11, Village- Lata, Post- Amadand Pendra, Current Residence Village- Ameri, Thana And Tahsil - Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Rewati D/o Amanat Singh Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Village- Lata, Post- Amadand Pendra, Current Residence Village- Ameri, Thana And Tahsil - Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Fulsiya Uraon W/o Kushal Uraon Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Village- Lata, Post- Amadand Pendra, Current Residence Village- Ameri, Thana And Tahsil - Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Kushal S/o Late Samaru Aged About 59 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Village- Lata, Post- Amadand Pendra, Current Residence Village- Ameri, Thana And Tahsil - Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Ramesh Kumar Keshari S/o B.L. Keshari Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Sakora (Patharra), Chowki- Kotmikalan, Thana- Pendra, District- Gorrela- Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) 495117 (Driver Of Vehicle Bus No. C.G. 12/a Z- 8013) 2. Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Through The Principal Santosh Kumar Patel, Ward No. 18, Thanapara, Village - Pasan, Thana- Pasan, District- Korba (C.G.) 495677 (Owner Of Vehicle Bus No. C.G. 12/a Z- 8013) 3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, Office- Win-Way Building, 2nd And 3rd Floor 11/12, Block No. 04, Old No. 67, Near Madhu Milan Chowk, Dakshin Tukoganj (Wrongly Mentioned As Tukoganni Indore, Tahsil And District Indore (M.P.) 452001) (Insurer Company Of Vehicle Bus No. C.G. 12/a Z- 8013) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.16 15:59:29 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.10 .2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur dated 08.01.2025 in Claim Case No. 1029/2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,25,480/- on account of death of Amant Singh. 2. The facts of the present case are that on 04.05.2022, when Amanat Singh was returning to his village Lata on his motorcycle along with his wife, at about 6:00 pm, the driver of the offending Bus bearing registration No. C.G. 12 AZ 8013 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of Late Amant Singh, consequently, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. The claimants who are widow, children and parents of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. They pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 35 years and he was earning Rs. 30,000 by selling fish. They claimed a sum of Rs. 63,28,000/-. 3. Insurance company filed reply and took specific plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence and there was no permit to drive the vehicle. The driver and owner filed reply and pleaded that on the date of accident, the driver had valid driving licence and the vehicle was insured with the Insurance company. 4. The learned Tribunal framed issues and passed award. The learned Tribunal assessed monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs. 7,800/-, in absence of any documentary evidence. The learned Tribunal further added 40% for future prospect and awarded just and proper compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 5. Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the claimants would 3 submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered monthly notional income of the deceased according to minimum wages matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh which was Rs. 9540/- per month. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 6. Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate would submit that the driver and owner of the vehicle have filed cross objection challenging the liability part as the learned Tribunal has fastened liability to pay the amount of compensation on driver and owner. He would further submit that the Insurance company failed to plead and prove the fact that the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit. He would also submit that the burden was on Insurance company to prove this fact. It is also contended that the Insurance company failed to examine the officials of Regional Transport Authority to prove this fact. 7. Ms. Harneet Kaur, learned counsel appearing for Insurance company would oppose. She would submit that the driver and owner appeared before the learned Tribunal, but did not avert with regard to permit though specific plea was taken by the Insurance company in the reply. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The learned Tribunal while dealing with the issue No. 3 held that Rahul Chaudhray AW/1 examined by the Insurance company has stated that Insurance policy was issued in favour of the offending vehicle M/s Saraswati Shishu Mandir for period from 10.08.2021 till 09.08.2022 and it was a Passengers Carriage Package Policy and valid & effective permit and fitness were requisites of such policy. 10. Further perusal of the record would show that the application under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC read with Section 161 of CPC was moved by the Insurance company to disclose the document i.e. permit and fitness of the 4 offending vehicle from owner and driver of the vehicle, but they failed to adduce those documents. 11. Considering the fact that though an application under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC was moved and driver & owner failed to produce valid permit and fitness before the learned Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to entertain the cross objection, accordingly same is hereby rejected. 12. Now coming to the instant appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered notional income of the deceased at lower side i.e. Rs. 7,800/-, whereas, according to minimum wages matrix, the minimum wage payable to unskilled labourer in the month of May, 2022 was Rs. 9,540/-. 13. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130, the compensation requires reconsideration and the same is revisited herein-below :- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 7,800 x 12 = Rs. 93,600/- Rs. 9,540 x 12 = Rs. 1,14,480/- 2. Future Prospect (40%) = Rs. 37,440/- (40%) = Rs. 45,792/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 Rs. 32,760/- Rs. 98,280/- (-) 1/4 Rs. 40,068/- Rs. 1,20,204/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs. 15,72,480/- (x) 16 = Rs. 19,23,264/- 5 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- 8. Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 2) Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- 9. Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 3) Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- 10. Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 4) Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- 11. Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 5) Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- TOTAL Rs. 18,25,480/- Rs. 21,76,264/- 14. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 18,25,480/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 21,76,264/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 18,25,480/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,50,784/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellants shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant