1 2025:CGHC:53881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1067 of 2023 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address - Shop No. 516, 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, Commercial Complex, Great Eastern Road, Geeta Nagar, Samta Colony Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Sandeep Kumar Shandilya S/o. Late Raghubir Shandilya, Aged About 35 Years R/o. Ward No. 07, Village Chanbaridand, P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 2 - Praveen Kumar Shandilya, S/o. Late Raghubir Shandilya, Aged About 30 Years R/o. Ward No. 07, Village Chanbaridand, P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jagdev Prasad S/o. Laxman Prasad, Aged About 38 Years Occupation Driver, R/o. Baihatola, P.S. Bijuri, Tahsil Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.06 11:09:03 +0530 2 4 - Arnav Buildcon Privae Limited, Through Proprietor Samta Khediya, Shri Gopal Sheet Grih Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anil Kumar Jain, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 04.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 06/05/2023 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 21/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 85,30,933/- as compensation to respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants for the death of Raghubir Shandilya, aged about 58 years, who worked as an Overman in SECL and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants have also filed cross appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC seeking 3 enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company) would submit that the Claims Tribunal ought not to have included overtime and sunday wages in the monthly income of the deceased while computing the quantum of compensation and as such, the amount of compensation awarded to respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants is excessive. He would further submit that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, therefore, half of the compensation amount ought to have been deducted. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced as the salary received by the deceased in the month of June, 2021 was Rs. 1,88,521.68/- which ought to have been taken as his monthly income, however, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1,25,688.92/-, as such, the impugned award may suitably be enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 4 Consideration on Appeal :- 6. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding in paragraph 39, relying upon the statement of Personnel Manager, SECL, namely Rameshwar Prasad (AW-2), that in the month of June, 2021, deceased was granted Rs. 75,619.80/- as basic pay, Rs. 21,022.30/- as dearness allowance, Rs. 1775.03/- as special dearness allowance, Rs. 3,412.04/- as perks, Rs. 899/- as gas allowance, Rs. 105/- as nightly allowance, Rs. 5,000/- as overtime and Rs. 11,985.02/- as sunday wages, thereby, making the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 12,25,688.92/-. The said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Moreover, the plea of contributory negligence, though has been raised, but no evidence has been led by the appellant (Insurance Company) to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Consideration on Cross-Appeal :- 7. It is the case of respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants that the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs. 1,88,521/-, however, the Claims Tribunal has erred in taking it as Rs. 1,25,688.92/-. 5 8. Learned Claims Tribunal, in paragraph 40 of the impugned award, has clearly recorded a finding that the monthly income of the deceased cannot been taken as Rs. 1,88,521/- because in the salary of June, 2021, the deceased was also paid arrears of increased dearness allowance, which cannot be a part of his monthly income and as such, his monthly income has been taken as Rs. 1,25,688.92/-, which is absolutely in accordance with law, and does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, it is directed that the amount of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be deposited by the appellant (Insurance Company) within 30 days from today. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal filed by the appellant (Insurance Company) as well as the cross-appeal filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 (claimants), are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet