1 2025:CGHC:50076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 400 of 2022 National Insurance Company Ltd, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Kamthi Line/New Bus Stand Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Rameshwari Bai, Wd/o. Late Ram Prasad, Caste Gond, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Village Kahadabari, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jigar, S/o. Late Ramprasad, Aged About 6 Years, Caste Gond, Minor, Through His Mother Smt. Rameshwari Bai, Wd./o Late Ramprasad (Respondent No.1) R/o. Village Kahadabari, Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ahem Kumar, S/o. Late Ramprasad, Aged About 4 Years, Caste Gond, Minor, Through His Mother Smt. Rameshwari Bai Wd./o Late Ramprasad (Respondent No.1) R/o. Village Kahadabari, Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.10.09 12:56:47 +0530 2 4– Divya, D/o. Ramprasad, Aged About 2 Years, Caste Gond, Minor, Through Her Mother Smt. Rameshwari Bai, Wd./o Late Ramprasad (Respondent No.1) R/o. Village Kahadabari, Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5- Bhushan, S/o. Rajulal Yadav, Aged About 33 Years, R/o. Dallirajhara, Ward No. 11, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 6 - Ranjit Singh, S/o. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Tatibandh Raipur, P.S. Aamanaka Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 4 : Mrs. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No.5 & 6 : Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, Advocate & MAC No. 380 of 2022 1 - Smt. Rameshwari Bai, W/o. Late Ramprasad, Aged About 28 Years, Caste Gond, R/o. Village Kahdabri, Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 – Jigar, S/o. Late Ramprasad, Aged About 6 Years, Caste Gond, Minor, Through Its Mother Smt. Rameshwari Bai, Aged About 28 Years, W/o. Late Ramprasad, By Caste Gond, R/o. Village Kahdabri, Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 3 - Ahem Kumar, S/o. Late Ramprasad, Aged About 4 Years, Caste Gond, Minor, Through Its Mother Smt. Rameshwari Bai, Aged About 28 Years, W/o. Late Ramprasad, By Caste Gond, R/o. Village Kahdabri, Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 – Divya, D/o. Late Ramprasad, Aged About 2 Years, Caste Gond, Minor, Through Its Mother Smt. Rameshwari Bai, Aged About 28 Years, W/o. Late Ramprasad, By Caste Gond, R/o. Village Kahdabri, Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus 1 – Bhushan, S/o. Rajulal Yadav, Aged About 33 Years, R/o. Dallirajhara, Ward No. 11, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), 2 - Ranjit Singh, S/o. Harbhajan Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Tatiband Raipur, Thana Amannaka, District Raipur. (Owner) 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Kamtee Line/New Bus Stand, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellants : Mrs. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate 4 (S.B.) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 08.10.2025 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, therefore, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The claimants have preferred the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of the amount under award; whereas the insurance company has preferred the appeal under Section 173 of the Act of 1988 seeking exoneration from the liability as well as reduction of the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.17,18,024/- along-with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application awarded to the claimants for death of Ramprasad, aged about 32 years, at the time of accident. 3. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company, would submit that the accident occurred on 01.03.2019 at 11:30 A.M. whereas permit was issued on 02:11 P.M. on the same day; therefore, the insurance company be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. He would further submit that as per the 5 Aadhar Card of the deceased, his age was 50 years, but the age of deceased has wrongly been mentioned as 32 years in the post-mortem report (Ex.P-2), therefore, the appeal of the insurance company be allowed. 4. Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, would submit that the deceased was working as Carpenter, therefore, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the notional income ought to have been taken as Rs.8,790/- per month and the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 5. Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the driver & owner of the offending vehicle would oppose the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the insurance company and learned counsel for the claimants. 6. 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 i.e. MAC No.400/2022 7. The insurance company has firstly taken a ground that the permit of the offending vehicle was issued on 01.03.2019 at 6 02:11 P.M. as per Ex.D-1, whereas the accident occurred on 01.03.2019 at 11:30 A.M. Though Ex.D-1 has been filed which is permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority but the competent authority who had issued the permit has not been examined and only it has been exhibited at the instance of the Officer of the Insurance Company i.e. C.Toppo and on that basis the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the document (Ex.D-1), which was issued on 01.03.2019 at 02:11 P.M. has not been proved and, therefore, rightly not accepted the submission raised on behalf of the insurance company. 8. Secondly, the Aadhar Card of the deceased has been filed stating that the age of the deceased was 50 years on the date of accident, however, there is no pleading in this regard in the written statement filed by the insurance company that the age of the deceased was 50 years. Therefore, additional document cannot be taken in absence of pleading in the written statement with regard to the age of the deceased to be 50 years. As such, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly been taken the age of the deceased to be 32 years as per the post-mortem report (Ex.P-2), which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Therefore, I do not find any merit 7 in the appeal preferred by the insurance company, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal of the Claimants i.e. MAC No.380/2022 9. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Ramprasad to be Rs. 8,140/- per month, however, as per the uncontroverted statement of wife of deceased Smt. Rameshwari Bai, deceased Ramprasad was working as Carpenter and, as such, he was semi-skilled labour. Therefore, 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. 8,790/- per month and, as such, the income of deceased comes to Rs.1,05,480/- per annum. 10. 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 @ 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 8 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. 8,140 x 12 = Rs. 97,680/- Rs. 8,790 x 12 = Rs. 1,05,480/- Add future prospects @40% Rs. 39,072 + Rs. 97,680 = Rs. 1,36,752/- Rs. 42,192 + Rs. 1,05,480 = Rs. 1,47,672/- Deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses Rs. 1,36,752 – 34,188 = 1,02,564/- Rs. 1,47,672 – 36,918 = 1,10,754/- Multiplier of 16 Rs. 1,02,564 x 16 = Rs. 16,41,024/- Rs. 1,10,754 x 16 = Rs. 17,72,064/- Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Loss of Consortium Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000 ------------------ Rs. 70,000 + 10% = Rs.77,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/- Total Rs. 17,18,024/- Rs. 19,62,064/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 17,18,024/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 19,62,064/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 17,18,024/-, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,44,040/-. The 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 9 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. 12. Accordingly, this appeal of the claimants is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok