1 2025:CGHC:61567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 235 of 2023 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Ground Floor, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Tractor No. CG 05 AJ 0593) --- Appellant versus 1 - Maniram Netam, S/o. Akturam Netam, Aged About 47 Years, Residents Of Gram Schoolpara, Saraitola, Gram Panchayat Saraitola, Thana Dugli, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Mathurabai Netam, W/o. Maniram Netam, Aged About 46 Years, Residents Of Gram Schoolpara, Saraitola, Gram Panchayat Saraitola, Thana Dugli, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shubham Kumar Netam, S/o. Maniram Netam, Aged About 16 Years, Residents Of Gram Schoolpara, Saraitola, Gram Panchayat Saraitola, Thana Dugli, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bhupendra Kumar Sonwani (Sahu), S/o. Dugruram Sonwani (Sahu) Aged About 37 Years, R/o. Gram Bohara, Post Pallari, Chowki Kanwar, Tehsil Gurur, District - Balod Chhattisgarh. ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.12.17 17:24:23 +0530 2 5 - Ramchandra Chakradhari, S/o. Munnalal Chakradhar, R/o. Gram Fokatpara, Koliyari, Thanai Arjuni, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Raosaheb Amin, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No.4 & 5 : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate & MAC No. 877 of 2022 1 – Maniram, S/o. Akturam Netam, Aged About 46 Years, R/o. Village Schoolpara, Saraitola, Gram Panchayat Saraitola, Police Station Dugli, Tahsil Nagri, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Mathura Bai Netam, W/o. Maniram Netam, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village Schoolpara, Saraitola, Gram Panchayat Saraitola, Police Station Dugli, Tahsil Nagri, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3 - Subham Kumar Netam, S/o. Maniram Netam, Aged About 15 Years, (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Father Maniram Netam. R/o Village Schoolpara, Saraitola, Gram Panchayat Saraitola, Police Station Dugli, Tahsil Nagri, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus 1 - Bhupendra Kumar Sonwani (Sahu), S/o Dugruram Sonwani (Sahu) Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Bohara, Post Palari, Outpost Kanwar, Tahsil Gurur, District- Balod Chhattisgarh. 3 2 - Ramchandra Chakradhari, S/o. Munnalal Chakradhari, R/o Village Fokatpara, Koliyari, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombar General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- Ground Floor Vanjya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shekhar Raosaheb Amin, Advocate (S.B.) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 17.12.2025 1. MAC No.235 of 2023 has been preferred by the Insurance Company seeking exoneration from its liability to pay the compensation amount; whereas MAC No.877 of 2022 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 4 3. Mr. Shekhar Raosaheb Amin, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that the offending vehicle has been falsely implanted in the accident in question, therefore, the insurance company be exonerated from its liability. 4. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount, as the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, which ought to have been taken as Rs. 8,860/- per month, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 6. Since the accident occurred on 26.11.2020, FIR was lodged on 04.01.2021 and ultimately the charge sheet was filed on 05.03.2021 naming the offending vehicle vide Ex.P-1, therefore, it cannot be held that the offending vehicle has been falsely implanted in the accident. Furthermore, the delay in lodging the FIR would not result in rejection of the claim application and false implication of the vehicle. As such, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by 5 the insurance company, the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 7. The deceased was aged about 15 years at the time of accident, therefore, the monthly notional income would be Rs. 8,860/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. 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 Sethi1, 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. 4,500 x 12 = Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 8,860 x 12 = Rs. 1,06,320/- Add future prospects @ 40% Rs. 1,06,320 + Rs. 42,528 = Rs. 1,48,848/- Deduction towards personal expenses ½ deducted = Rs. 74,424/- Multiplier of 18 Rs. 54,000 x 18 = Rs. 9,72,000/- Rs. 74,4248 x 18 = Rs. 13,39,632/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Loss of consortium parental & filial Rs. 15,000 x 3 = Rs. 45,000/- Rs. 88,000/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Loss of loss & affection Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 10,32,000/- Rs. 14,63,632/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,32,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,63,632/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 10,32,000/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,31,632/-. 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 copy of this order. 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and the appeal of the claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok