1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 376 of 2020 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office Complex , Near Old Bus Stand , Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...(Policy No. 191300/ 31/ 2017 / 64 28.08.2017 (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G. - 04 - Kt- 9038)..(Insurer), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Bharti Katakwar W/o Shri Alok Katakwar Aged About 51 Years R/o Tikrapara , Bilaspur, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Alok Katakwar S/o Late K.P. Katakwar Aged About 58 Years R/o Tikrapara, Bilaspur , Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Anjali Katakwar D/o Shri Alok Katakwar Aged About 29 Years R/o Tikrapara , Bilaspur , Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kailash Bodhieya S/o Chhotku Ram Bodhieya Aged About 36 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Tarn Nagar, Nearby Gandhi Talab, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.......(Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. - 04- Kt- 9038) (Driver), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sourya Jain S/o Satish Jain Near T.V. Tower , Jain Mandir , Shanker Nagar , Police Station Civil Line, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. - 04- Kt - 9038) .. (Owner), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance Company Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate 2 For Respondents No. 1 to 3 For respondent No.5 : Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, Advocate : Ms. Shruti Jha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 01.12.2025 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the legality, validity and propriety of award passed by the learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.343 of 2018 dated 07.12.2019 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.23,78,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Mayank Katakwar and fastened liability with the driver and owner of the vehicle with stipulation that Insurance Company shall first satisfy the award then recover it from driver and owner. 2. Mr. Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the deceased met with an accident on 14.12.2016 as offending car bearing registration No.C.G.04/KT/9038 dashed him. He would further submit that the deceased was bachelor of Engineering and his age was 22 years at the time of accident. He would contend that the claimants pleaded income of deceased Rs.30,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal assessed it Rs.15,000/- per month. He would further contend that as the deceased was not employed anywhere, thus, learned Tribunal has assessed income of deceased at higher side. He would submit that the learned Tribunal should have treated the deceased an unskilled labourer. He would further submit that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and thus, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the deceased aged about 22 years and he was a bachelor of engineering. Therefore, it can be said that looking to his educational qualification, he was having a bright future. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Vasanthi and another Vs. Adhiparasakthi Engineering College and another, reported in 2022(15) SCC 316, paras 11 & 12 held as under : “11.A perusal of the affidavit filed by appellant No. 1 before the Tribunal would reveal that she had specifically stated that two of her son’s classmates were gainfully employed with wellknown companies in India and were drawing monthly income of Rs. 39,869/ and Rs. 44,588/ respectively. It will be relevant to note that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has adverted to these averments made by appellant No. 1. 12. It could thus be seen that the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan was twentythree years of age at the time of the accident. He was a qualified engineering graduate and was pursuing an MBA degree at SRM University to further his professional capabilities. In view of the specific averments made in the affidavit as to the employment prospects of the classmates of the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan and also his young age at the time of the accident, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not giving due weightage to the same. Had the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan not met with the unfortunate accident, he would have surely drawn a salary equivalent to that of his classmates or at least an amount near the said amount. Furthermore, the deceased was the only issue of the appellants. Since no parent should have to suffer through the death of their children, much less their only child, we are of the considered view that the monthly income as calculated by the High Court is inadequate. ” 4 7. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case; age of the deceased; his qualification and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-referred judgment, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to income. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha