1 2025:CGHC:43792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 163 of 2023 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 10003, E-8 EPIP, RIICOI, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Assistant Manager Having Office At Plot No. 1, 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Autho Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.........Insurer. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Najra Bee, Wd/o. Late Abdul Jaleel Khan, Aged About 47 Years, R/o. Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajij Khan, S/o. Late Abdul Jaleel Khan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Abdul Majij Khan, S/o. Late Abdul Jaleel Khan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o. Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ………..Claimants 4 - Ram Suraj Sahu, S/o. Leeladhar Sahu, Aged About 39 Years, R/o. Junatola, Marwahi, Police Station Marwahi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Near Durga Mandir Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh….Driver 5 - Rajesh Rajpal, S/o. Rawal Singh Rajpal, R/o. LIG-56, Sector- 2, Devendra Nagar Raipur, Present Address Pali, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ..........Owner. ... Respondents ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.08.29 16:54:34 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. P.R.Patankar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. D. Kushwaha, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 28.08.2025 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 07.11.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba in Claim Case No.136/2019, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and an amount of compensation of Rs.25,10,504/- has been awarded to the claimants along-with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 2. Mr. P.R.Patankar, learned counsel for appellant/insurance company, would submit that since the deceased was bachelor, therefore, 1/2 ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, whereas 1/3 has been deducted. He would further submit that the claimants No.2 & 3 are not entitled for compensation 3 towards loss of love & affection of their brother and, as such, the appeal be allowed in part by reducing the amount of compensation. 3. Mr. D. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondent No.1 to 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the appeal of the insurance company liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal has noticed the fact that the deceased was bachelor but taking into the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors1 and considering the fact that the claimant No.1 is mother of the deceased and other claimants are non-earning brothers and they are studying, 1/3 has been deducted towards personal expenses, which in my considered opinion is a correct finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, which warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 Rs.44,000/- each i.e. Rs.88,000/- to the claimants No.2 & 3 (two brothers of the deceased) towards loss of love & affection, but according to learned counsel for the appellant it could not have been awarded in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others 2. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider a fit case to interfere on the amount of award awarded to the claimants No.2 & 3 towards love & affection. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130