Page No.1 of 9 IN MAC-848-2022 & MAC-1014-2023 2025:CGHC:58688 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [Arising out of common award dt. 07.04.2022, passed in Claim Case No.H-73/2019 (Smt. Nirmala Patil and others v. Murari Ram Nishad and others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG)] MAC No. 848 of 2022 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager, Division Office, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhanshabha Road, Pandri, Police Station Pandri, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Nirmala Patil W/o Late Shri Khelawan Patil Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Gunderdehi, Post Jaamgaon, Police Station Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Neman Patil S/o Late Shri Khelawan Patil Aged About 14 Years Minor Represented Through His Mother Smt. Nirmala Patil R/o Village Gunderdehi, Post Jaamgaon, Police Station Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Lalita Patil D/o Late Shri Khelawan Patil Minor Represented Through Her Mother Smt. Nirmala Patil R/o Village Gunderdehi, Post Jaamgaon, Police Station Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Shashi Patil D/o Late Shri Khelawan Patil Minor Represented Through Her Mother Smt. Nirmala Patil R/o Village Gunderdehi, Post Jaamgaon, Police Station Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Kumaribai W/o Jethuram Patil Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Gunderdehi, Post Jaamgaon, Police Station Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 9 IN MAC-848-2022 & MAC-1014-2023 6 - Murari Ram Nishad S/o Bisahata Nishad Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Hathkhoj, Police Station Fingeshwar,, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Uttam Yadav S/o Baisakhu Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Birkoni, Police Station, Tehsil And District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1-5 : Mr. K.G. Kela, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WITH MAC No. 1014 of 2023 1 - Smt. Nirmala Patil W/o Late Khelawan Patil Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Gundardehi, Post Office- Jamgaon Police Station - Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattiagarh. 2 - Neman Patil S/o Late Late Khelawan Patil Aged About 17 Years Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nirmala Patil, R/o Village- Gundardehi, Post Office- Jamgaon Police Station - Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattiagarh. 3 - Ku. Lalita Patil D/o Late Late Khelawan Patil Aged About 16 Years R/o Village- Gundardehi, Post Office- Jamgaon Police Station - Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattiagarh. 4 - Ku. Shashi Patil D/o Late Late Khelawan Patil Aged About 14 Years Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nirmala Patil, R/o Village- Gundardehi, Post Office- Jamgaon Police Station - Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattiagarh. 5 - Smt. Kumaribai Patil W/o Jethuram Patil Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Gundardehi, Post Office- Jamgaon Police Station - Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattiagarh. ---Appellants Versus 1 - Murari Ram Nisad S/o Bisahata Nisad Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Hathkhoj, Police Station Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Dricer Of Offending Vehicle Tata D.I. No. C.G.-06 M/0534) Page No.3 of 9 IN MAC-848-2022 & MAC-1014-2023 2 - Uttam Yadav S/o Baisakhu Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Birkoni, Police Station, Tahsil Adn District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tata D.I. No. C.G.-06 M/0534) 3 - Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road Pandari, Police Station Pandari, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Of Offending Vehicle Tata D.I. No. C.G.-06 M/0534) --- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. K.G. Kela, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 03.12.2025 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of fact and law involved and being arising out of a common impugned award dt. 07.04.2022, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both these appeals are clubbed together heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. MAC-1014-2023 has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 07.04.2022, passed in Claim Case No.H-73/2019 (Smt. Nirmala Patil and others v. Murari Ram Nishad and others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.13,64,000/- as compensation for the death of Page No.4 of 9 IN MAC-848-2022 & MAC-1014-2023 Khelawan Patil. Whereas, MAC-848-2022 has been filed by the Insurance Company calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of same impugned award dt. 07.04.2022, whereby liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.13,64,000/- alongwith interest from the date of claim has been imposed upon the Insurance Company. 3. Mr. KG Kela, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which should be Rs.8,140/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Even, learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation on the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss consortium, which ought to have been, Rs.16,500/-, Rs.16,500/- & Rs.44,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,20,000/-. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would firstly submit that the claimants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of the deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not required to be enhanced. He vehemently Page No.5 of 9 IN MAC-848-2022 & MAC-1014-2023 argued that in the present case accident occurred on 05.01.2019, whereas the FIR was lodged against unknown person that too with a delay on 13.01.2019 and, thereafter, on 04.04.2019, the vehicle in question has been seized and charge-sheet has been filed on 21.04.2019 against the accused, as such, the involvement of the vehicle in question is doubtful. Even otherwise, eye-witness to the incident, namely, Ramesh Yadav also died. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law while fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Company. As such, the impugned award to that extent is also liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. So far as the plea of the Insurance Company that since there is delay in lodging the FIR, the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law while fastening the liability to pay compensation upon them is concerned, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others 1 , whereby their Lordships have clearly held that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case and observed in Para-17 & 19 as under: “17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot 1 (2011) 4 SCC 493 Page No.6 of 9 IN MAC-848-2022 & MAC-1014-2023 expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. **** **** **** **** 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” 7. In view of above settled legal position, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be taken as a ground to reject the claimant’s case more particularly when the learned Claims Tribunal after full-fledged trial has found that the vehicle in question bearing No.CG-06-GB- 6179 was involved in the accident on the date of occurrence and, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died. As such, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award to the extent of Page No.7 of 9 IN MAC-848-2022 & MAC-1014-2023 fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Company, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 173 of the MV Act. Hence, MAC-848-2022, filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 8. Now, so far as the appeal of the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.6,000/-, 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 should be Rs.8,140/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, the learned Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 only, whereas under the facts of the present case, it ought to have been 16. Even, learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation on the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss consortium, which ought to have been, Rs.16,500/-, Rs.16,500/- & Rs.44,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,20,000/-. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 9. 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 2, Sarla Verma & 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 Page No.8 of 9 IN MAC-848-2022 & MAC-1014-2023 Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors3 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 4 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.6,000 x 12 = Rs.72,000/- Rs.8,140 x 12 = Rs.97,680/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.28,800/-) = Rs.1,00,800/- (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.39,072/-) = Rs.1,36,752/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs.25,200/-) = Rs.75,600/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs.34,188/-) = Rs.1,02,564/- 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs.11,34,000/- (x) 16 = Rs. Rs.16,41,024/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- X 5 = Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.44,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,20,000/- Total Rs.13,64,000/- Rs.18,94,024/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.13,64,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.18,94,024/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.13,64,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,30,024/-. The concerned respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.9 of 9 IN MAC-848-2022 & MAC-1014-2023 additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, MAC-1014-2023, filed by the claimants is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Whereas, since I do not find any merit in MAC-848-2022 filed by the Insurance Company, therefore, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if