1 2025:CGHC:50133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 404 of 2022 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh, Through- Incharge, T.P. Hub, 1st Floor, LIC Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Manesh Kumar Deewan, S/o. Hiraman Deewan, Aged About 43 Years, R/o. Village- Khalepara, Badeodagaon, Tehsil- Farasgaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Laxmi Deewan, W/o. Shri Manesh Kumar Deewan, Aged About 41 Years, R/o. Village- Khalepara, Badeodagaon, Tehsil- Farasgaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ramesh Kashyap, S/o. Manglu Kashyap, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Kulgaon, Thana Parpa, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Yogendra Kumar Sahu, S/o. Balwant Sahu, R/o- Police Line, Karli, Geedam, District- Dantewada Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.10.09 12:57:18 +0530 2 For Appellants For Claimants/ Respondents No.1&2 : : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate (S.B.) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 08.10.2025 1. The insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 16.11.2021 passed in Claim Case No.7/2020 seeking exoneration of its liability; whereas, the cross-objection has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, would submit that driver Ramesh Kashyap was not driving the offending vehicle but helper Laikhuram Baghel was driving the vehicle without having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the insurance company ought to have been exonerated from its liability. 3. Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the claimants, would support the impugned award and submit that the 3 amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced suitably. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. Appeal of the Insurance Company 5. Though the insurance company has taken a specific plea that the offending vehicle was driven by Laikhuram Baghel who was helper, but the evidence on record would show that in a criminal case, charge sheet was filed vide Ex.P-1 against driver Ramesh Kashyap for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and even Laikhuram Baghel has not been examined on behalf of the insurance company, who was allegedly driving the vehicle. In that view of the matter, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the plea of the insurance company that Laikhuram Baghel was driving the vehicle and rightly held that the vehicle was driven by Ramesh Kashyap. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal preferred by the insurance company, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 4 Cross-Objection of the Claimants 6. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Roshan Kumar Deewan to be Rs. 7,125/- per month, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been taken Rs. 7,800/- per month and, as such, the income of deceased comes to Rs.93,600/- per annum. 7. 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 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 7,125 x 12 = Rs. 86,100/- Rs. 7,800 x 12 = Rs. 93,600/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 Add future prospects @40% Rs. 34,440 + Rs. 86,100 = Rs. 1,20,540/- Rs. 37,440 + Rs. 93,600 = Rs. 1,31,040/- Deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses Rs. 1,20,540 – 60,270 = 60,270/- Rs. 1,31,040 – 65,520 = 65,520/- Multiplier of 18 Rs. 60,270 x 18 = Rs. 10,84,860/- Rs. 65,520 x 18 = Rs. 11,79,360/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000 x 2 = Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 44,000 x 2 = Rs. 88,000/- Total Rs. 11,94,860/- Rs. 13,00,360/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 11,94,860/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,00,360/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 11,94,860/-, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,05,500/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 6 9. Accordingly, the cross objection filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok