1 2025:CGHC:52183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 933 of 2020  United India Insurance Company Limited Infront Of Anupama Talkies, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh Through Manager, T.P. Hub Bilaspur, L.I.C. Building, 1st Floor, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Malti Mourya W/o Budhruram Mourya Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Madiyapara, Kawaras, Chhindwara, P.S. And Tahsil Darbha District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2. Natrajan S/o Mani Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Badakarai, Thathur, Presently Residing At E.P. Colony, Namakkal, P.S. Ermapatti, District Namakkal (T.N.). (Driver), District : Namakkal, Tamil Nadu 3. Smt. T. Sumathi R/o No. 10 Sss Building, A.B. Road, Chamrajpeth, Bangalore, (Karnataka) - 7560018. (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/ : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Claimant Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.10 .2025 1. The Insurance company has challenged the award passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur passed in Claim Case No. 159/2016 dated 05/02/2020, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 7,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death of Ramesh. 2. Facts in brief are that on 14.05.2016, the deceased Ramesh was travelling on Truck, which turned turtle; resultantly, Ramesh, Manglu and Mangan SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.27 14:29:52 +0530 2 Yadav sustained injuries and died. The elder sister of the deceased pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 26 years and he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month working as labourer. She claimed a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/-. 3. Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate would argue that though the claimant claimed Rs. 4,70,000/-, but the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,44,000/- with interest, and thus, committed error of law. He would further argue that the claimant is married elder sister of the deceased and she was not dependant on the income of the deceased, therefore, the claim application moved by her was not maintainable and the learned Tribunal committed error of law while passing the award. He would pray to set-aside the award. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate appearing for claimant/respondent No. 1 would argue that the claimant was a deserted lady and she was residing along with the deceased for more than three years and this fact has not been rebutted by the Insurance company by leading clinching evidence. He would fairly submit that the claimant was married to one Budhruram Mourya, but she was deserted three years prior to date of accident and since then she was residing along with her younger brother. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The claimant in her evidence has category stated that she was deserted by her husband three years prior to date of accident and since then she was staying along with her younger brother and she was dependent on his income. The Insurance company could not rebut the said piece of evidence 3 by leading clinching evidence; therefore, the contention made by Mr. Sahu cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected. 7. With regard to award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,44,000/-, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto Alias Nemchand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 in para 17 held as under :- “17. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award “just” compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.” 8. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the award passed by learned Tribunal appears to be reasonable. Accordingly, the contention made by Mr. Sahu with regard to grant of compensation more than claimed is hereby rejected. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant