(MAC No.1702/2017) 2025:CGHC:52491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1702 of 2017 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Champa, Thana Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office Rama Trade Center, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Saraswati Bai Sahu, W/o Late Raju Sahu, Aged 36 years. 2. Krishna Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Raju Sahu, Aged 19 years. 3. Ku. Geeta Sahu, D/o Late Raju Sahu, Aged 16 years. 4. Sangita Sahu, D/o Late Raju Sahu, Aged 14 years. Respondent No.3 & 4 Minor through natural guardian Smt. Saraswati Bai Sahu 5. Rohani Bai, W/o Shri Filki Ram Sahu, Aged 60 years. 6. Filki Ram Sahu, S/o Late Ram Prasad, Aged 65 years. Respondent No.1 to 6 Caste Sahu, R/o Champa, Thana Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 7. Govind Yadav, S/o Rakhi Yadav, Aged 21 years, R/o Near Goushal School Naila, Thana Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 8. Ramnath Suryawanshi, S/o Nankidau Suryawanshi, Aged 50 years, R/o Naila, Ward No.02 (Darripar), Thana Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh (Driver) SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.10.29 17:56:36 +0530 (MAC No.1702/2017) 9. Prakash Agrawal, S/o Shri Nawal Kishor Agrawal, Aged 29 years, R/o Near Tulsi Bhawan, Link Road, Janjgir, Thana Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 6: Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.9 : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 28/10/2025 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 24-8- 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Janjgir-Champa in Motor Accident Claim Case No.81/2016, by which while granting the claim application the learned Claims Tribunal has fastened liability upon the appellant Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the extent of ₹ 11,74,300/- along with interest @ 8% per annum to the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 6 herein for death of deceased Raju Sahu, aged about 40 years at the time of incident. Deceased Raju Sahu was husband of claimant No.1, father of claimants No.2 to 4 and son of of claimants No.5 & 6. 2. The claimants have also preferred cross-objection claiming enhancement of the amount of compensation. Page 3 of 6 (MAC No.1702/2017) 3. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would submit that driver Govind Yadav, who was driving the vehicle at the time of incident, did not have valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has committed error in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company, as Govind Yadav is Helper as shown by Prakash Agrawal – owner of the vehicle and criminal case has also been registered against Govind Yadav and as such, the appeal be allowed and cross-objection be rejected. 4. Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 6 herein, would oppose the appeal and submit that only 22 days working in a month has been calculated which ought to have been 30 days. 5. Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.9 herein/owner of the vehicle would support the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The only ground taken is that driver Govind Yadav did not have valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle, however, the Claims Tribunal relied upon the statement of eyewitness Birendra Sahu (AW-2) to the incident who has stated that on the date of accident, the actual driver of the vehicle namely Ramnath (MAC No.1702/2017) Suryawanshi parked the vehicle in running condition and alighted from the vehicle to verify the address and in his absence, helper Govind Yadav negligently tried to take out the keys from the vehicle due to which the vehicle started moving and the accident occurred. In that view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the actual driver was Ramnath Suryawanshi, who had license and Govind Yadav was only Helper and he wanted to remove keys from the vehicle during the course of which the vehicle started moving and the accident occurred, therefore, it cannot be held that Govind Yadav was driver. The Claims Tribunal has rightly held that Ramnath Suryawanshi was the driver who has having valid and effective driving license to the drive the vehicle and rightly fastened liability upon the Insurance Company in which I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award warranting interference. Cross-objection of the Claimants 8. The Claims Tribunal has only taken income of the deceased to be ₹ 300/- per day and granted compensation taking monthly income to be ₹ 6,600/- (300 x 22) treating 22 working days in a month, whereas it has to be taken as 30 working days in a month by which monthly income would be ₹ 9,000/- (300 x 30). 9. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and also considering 30 working days in a month, this Court is computing (MAC No.1702/2017) the compensation as below and the cross-objection is allowed in following terms :- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 6,600 x 12 = ₹ 79,200/- ₹ 9,000 x 12 = ₹ 1,08,000/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ = ₹ 19,800/- ₹ 79,200 – 19,800 = ₹ 59,400/- (total income) (-) ¼ = ₹ 27,000/- ₹ 1,08,000 – 27,000 = ₹ 81,000/- (total income) 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = ₹ 8,91,000/- (x) 15 = ₹ 12,15,000/- 5. Expenses for Medical Treatment ₹ 2,08,300/- ₹ 2,08,300/- 6. Vehicle Expenses ₹ 5,000/- ₹ 5,000/- 7. Other heads ₹ 70,000/- ₹ 70,000 Total ₹ 11,74,300/- ₹ 14,98,300/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 11,74,300/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 14,98,300/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 11,74,300/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 3,24,000/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 17-10-2016 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed, the cross-objection filed by the claimants is allowed and (MAC No.1702/2017) the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma