Page No.1 of 8 IN MAC-1290-2022 & MAC-979-2022 2025:CGHC:55883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [Arising out of common award dated 13.05.2022, passed in Claims Case No.1008/2021 (Sakti Shriwas and others v. Rajeesh Yadav and others) by the 3rd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG)] MAC No. 1290 of 2022 1 - Sakti Shriwas W/o Late Shri Baital @ Bheem Singh Shriwas Aged About 30 Years R/o Chanadapara, Near Brihaspati Bazar, Thana Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2 - Janak Ram Sen (Shriwas) S/o Late Shri Kalesh Ram Shriwas Aged About 55 Years R/o Chanadapara, Near Brihaspati Bazar, Thana Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 3 - Kaliya Shriwas W/o Janak Ram Shriwas Aged About 50 Years R/o Chanadapara, Near Brihaspati Bazar, Thana Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Claimant) --- Appellants Versus 1 - Rajesh Yadav S/o Musan Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Yadunandan Nagar Tifra, Thana Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C. G. 10/ E. Q./7111) 2 - Nitin Agrawal S/o Late Puran Lal Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Ekta Nagar Bilha, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C. G. 10/ E. Q./7111) 3 - The New India General Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager Divisional Office, 2nd Floor Ram Trade Center, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C. G. 10/ E. Q./7111) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 8 IN MAC-1290-2022 & MAC-979-2022 --- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WITH MAC No. 979 of 2022 The New India General Insurance Company Limited (Correct Name Is New India Assurance) Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center, Infront Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Trailer No. C. G.-10-E Q-7111) (Non Applicant No. 3) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Shakti Shrivas W/o Late Shri Baital @ Bheem Singh Shrivas Aged About 30 Years R/o Chantapara, Near Brihaspati Bazar, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh........ (Claimant) 2 - Janak Ram Sen (Shrivas) S/o Late Shri Kalesh Ram Shrivas Aged About 55 Years R/o Chantapara, Near Brihaspati Bazar, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh........ (Claimant) 3 - Kaliya Shrivas W/o Janak Ram Shrivas Aged About 50 Years R/o Chantapara, Near Brihaspati Bazar, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh........(Claimant) 4 - Rajesh Yadav S/o Musan Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Trailer No. C. G.- 10-E Q-7111)........(Non Applicant No. 1) 5 - Nitin Agrawal S/o Late Puran Lal Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Ekta Nagar, Bilha, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle Trailer No. C. G.-10-E Q-7111)........(Non Applicant No. 2) --- Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Page No.3 of 8 IN MAC-1290-2022 & MAC-979-2022 For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/Claimants : Mr. AL Singroul, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 17.11.2025 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. 13.05.2022, 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-1290-2022 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 13.05.2022, passed in Claims Case No.1008/2021 (Sakti Shriwas and others v. Rajeesh Yadav and others) by the 3rd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,62,760/- as compensation for the death of Baital @ Bheem Singh. Whereas, MAC-979-2022 has been filed by the Insurance Company calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of same impugned award dt. 13.05.2022, whereby liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.15,62,760/- alongwith interest from the date of claim has been imposed upon the Page No.4 of 8 IN MAC-1290-2022 & MAC-979-2022 Insurance Company. 3. Mr. A.L. Singroul, 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.7,800/- per month which should be Rs.9,120/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. 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, Ms. Swati Agrawal, 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. She vehemently argued that in the present case accident occurred on 12.12.2020, whereas the offending vehicle was seized on 17.12.2020 and FIR was lodged on 11.01.2021 and, as such, the involvement of the vehicle in question is doubtful. 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. Page No.5 of 8 IN MAC-1290-2022 & MAC-979-2022 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 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, 1 (2011) 4 SCC 493 Page No.6 of 8 IN MAC-1290-2022 & MAC-979-2022 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 investigation has found that the vehicle in question bearing No.CG- 11-AT-2846 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 fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Company, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 173 of the MV Act. Hence, MAC-979-2022, 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 Page No.7 of 8 IN MAC-1290-2022 & MAC-979-2022 Rs.7,800/-, 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.9,120/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). 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 & 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.7,800 x 12 = Rs.93,600/- Rs.9,120 x 12 = Rs.1,09,440/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.37,440/-) = Rs.1,31,040/- (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.43,776/-) = Rs.1,53,216/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.43,680/-) = Rs.87,360/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.51,072/-) = Rs.1,02,144/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = (x) 16 = Rs. 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.8 of 8 IN MAC-1290-2022 & MAC-979-2022 Rs.13,97,760/- Rs.16,34,304/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs.44,000/- X 3 = Rs.1,32,000/- Rs.44,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/- Total Rs.15,62,760/- Rs.17,99,304/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.15,62,760/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,99,304/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.15,62,760/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,36,544/-. 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 additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% 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-1290-2022, 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-979-2022 filed by the Insurance Company, therefore, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if