(MAC No.1656/2023) 2025:CGHC:51211 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1656 of 2023 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through its Legal Manager, Present Address 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Pin 492 010 (C.G.) (Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1. Raju Mishra, S/o Bindeshwari Mishra, Aged 46 years, 2. Smt. Geetu Mishra, W/o Raju Mishra, Aged 34 years, 3. Ku. Stuti Mishra, D/o Raju Mishra, Aged 20 years, 4. Ku. Seema Mishra, D/o Raju Mishra, Aged 22 years, All are R/o Village Keshavnagar, Bishrampur, Tahsil & District Surajpur (C.G.) (Claimants) 5. Ronit Kumar Pandey, S/o Raju Pandey, Aged 25 years, R/o Village Bishrampur, Tahsil & District Surajpur (C.G.) (Owner) 6. Rohit Kumar Thakur, S/o Sanjay Kumar Thakur, Aged 36 years, R/o Village Keshavnagar (Lakdapara), Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Driver) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : None present, though served. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.10.15 16:25:50 +0530 (MAC No.1656/2023) Judgment on Board 14/08/2025 1. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 30-6- 2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.100/2021, by which the learned Claims Tribunal granting the application under Section 166 of the Act has awarded ₹ 14,50,822/- to the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 4 herein for death of deceased Chitranjan Mishra, aged about 17 years at the time of incident, fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. Deceased Chitranjan Mishra was son of claimants No.1 & 2 and brother of claimants No.3 & 4. 2. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would submit that FIR has falsely been lodged against the driver of the vehicle for offence under Section 304A of the IPC and 1/3 towards personal expenses ought not to have been deducted. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors1 to buttress his submission. 3. None present for the respondents, though served. 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 (MAC No.1656/2023) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant herein/Insurance Company and considered his submissions and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The first contention on behalf of the appellant deserves to be rejected, as though the incident occurred on 29-1-2021, FIR has been lodged on 20-3-2021, but thereafter, charge-sheet (Ex.A-1) was filed against the driver of the vehicle i.e. Rohit Kumar Thakur and he has been prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. Eyewitness Ramashankar (AW-2) has also proved the accident to have taken place on 29-1-2021. As such, false implication of the vehicle in question is rejected. Though the deceased was bachelor, but considering the fact that claimants No.1 & 2 are father & mother of the deceased and claimants No.3 & 4 are unmarried sisters of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has rightly proceeded to deduct 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and rightly granted compensation of ₹ 14,50,822/- which cannot be said to be erroneous and no interference is called for in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma