1 2025:CGHC:47937 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 670 of 2019  The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Office, Rama Trade Centre , In Front Of Rajiv Trade Plaza, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh......................Insurer Of Vehicle No. C G-04 L C-7473., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Motichand S/o Lobhan Prasad Upadhyay Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Shitaldah, Police Station Citi Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2. Jaikumar S/o Motichand Upadhyay Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Shitaldah, Police Station Citi Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3. Kamesh Rawat S/o Dadu Rawat Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Banjari, Post Banjari, District Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh, C/o Triyoginath Mishra, Quarter No. 23/866, Sector- 3, Near Prajapati Kiraya Bhandar, Shankar Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh..........................Driver Of Vehicle No. C G-04 L C- 7473., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Triyoginath Mishra S/o Lalta Prasad Mishra R/o Quarter No. 23/866, Sector- 3, Near Prajapati Kiraya Bhandar, Shankar Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh....................Owner Of Vehicle No. C G-04 L C- 7473., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Adv. For Respondent No. 5 Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Adv. WITH MAC No. 350 of 2019 1. Motichand S/o Lobhan Prasad Upadhyay Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Shitaldah, Thana-City Kotwali Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2. Jai Kumar S/o Motichand Upadhyay Aged About 22 Years Village Shitaldah, Thana-City Kotwali Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh............(Claimants), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. Kamlesh Rawat S/o Daddu Rawat Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bannjari Post Banjari District- Sidhi (M.P.), Through Triyoginath Mishra Qut. No. 23/866 Sector No.3, Near-Prajapati Kiraya Bhandar Shankar Nagar, Thana Civil Line Raipur, Chhattisgarh............(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04/l.C./7473)..........(Driver), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Triyoginath Mishra S/o Lalta Prasad Aged About 35 Years Qut. No. 23/866 Sector No. 3 Near-Prajapati Kiraya Bhandar Shankar Nagar, Thana-Civil Line Raipur, Chhattisgarh...............(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04/l.C./7473)............... (Owner), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Rama Tred Center In Fornt Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh................(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04/l.C./7473)............(Insurer), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. The National Insurance Company Limited Taha Complex Byapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur,chhattisgarh.............(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle 3 Motor Cycle No. C.G.10/l.C./5137)............(Insurer), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 18/09/2025 1) Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed MAC/670/2019 assailing the award passed by learned Additional Member of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District – Mungeli in Case No. 76/2017 dated 24.11.2018 whereby learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs. 7,12,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on account of death of Deendayal Upadhyay. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 23.05.2017, deceased Deendayal Upadhyay was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. CG–10–EC–3881 from Fasterpur to Village – Shitaldah. When he reached Kunwar Petrol Pump, Village–Silli, one Ramesh Yadav who was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. CG–10–V–5137 collided with the motorcycle of Deendayal Upadhyay, consequently he fell on the road and his head was crushed by the truck bearing registration No. CG–04–LJ–7473 ; resultantly, Deendayal Upadhyay died on the spot. 3) Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the 4 Oriental Insurance Company Limited submits that this story was concocted on 31.05.2017 whereas in the FIR which was lodged on 23.05.2017, it was stated that on account of collision between two motorcycles, deceased Deendayal Upadhyay died on the spot. He further submits that claim case was filed by the father and brother of deceased, who are not dependents and claimants have not adduced evidence to establish that they were dependent on the income of deceased, therefore the claim case filed by the claimants was not maintainable at all. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors1 and Ravi Versus Badrinarayan & Ors.2 to buttress his argument. 4) On the other hand, claimants have filed MAC/350/2019 for enhancement of amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the claimants submits that learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased to the tune of Rs. 4,500/- whereas deceased was working as a driver. He further submits that according to the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, minimum wages payable to an unskilled labour in the year 2017 was Rs. 7,800/-, thus learned tribunal has assessed the notional monthly income of deceased at lower side. Although, he fairly submits that learned Tribunal has 1. (2009) 6 SCC 121 2. (2011) 4 SCC 693 5 awarded appropriate amounts under other heads. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 5) Mr. Qamrul Aziz, learned counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company Limited submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He further submits that as there was involvement of offending truck in the accident, therefore learned Tribunal bifurcated the amount of compensation between two Insurance Companies. He contends that the appeals filed by Oriental Insurance Company Limited as well as the claimants deserve to be dismissed. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7) In the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 31 has held that the claimants have to establish the fact that claimants are dependent on the income of deceased and in absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents. Para 31 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below :- 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own 6 income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. 8) In the present case, father and brother of deceased had filed claim case before the learned tribunal and shown themselves as dependents of the deceased. In evidence, Motichand (father of deceased) in para – 3 stated that he and his wife were dependent on the income of deceased. Insurance Companies could not prove the contrary in cross- examination. Age of Jai Kumar (brother of deceased) was 22 years at the time death of deceased and Insurance Companies could not prove the fact that he was an earning member of the family, thus it cannot be presumed that he was not a dependent. In view of above, the contention made by Mr. Deshmukh cannot be accepted. 9) In the matter of Ravi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 19 has held that lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case of compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. Para 19 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below :- 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves 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, although lodging 7 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 variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility 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. 10) In the present case, no FIR was lodged against the driver of offending truck. Record would show that truck was seized by police on 31.05.2017 i.e. seven days after the date of accident. FIR was lodged by one Mukesh Upadhyay who was not an eye witness, therefore contention made by Mr. Deshmukh regarding non-registration of FIR against the driver of truck would not be fatal for the claim case filed by claimants. Also, investigation was conducted by the officer of Insurance Company but in that report, there is no whisper to the effect that truck was involved in the accident or not. Accordingly, contention made by Mr. Deshmukh cannot be accepted. 11) Now, coming to the submission made by Mr. Singroul with regard to enhancement of compensation. Perusal of award would show that learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 4,500/-. Certainly, it is on lower side looking to the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, according to which minimum wages 8 payable to an unskilled labour in the May, 2017 was Rs. 7,800/-. Although, learned Tribunal is justified in applying appropriate multiplier and deducting 50% towards personal & living expenses of deceased. Further, learned Tribunal has awarded an additional compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- which can be bifurcated as Rs. 40,000/- towards parental consortium and Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In view of above, this Court is re-computing the compensation herein below :- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 4,500 x 12 = Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 7,800/- x 12 =Rs. 93,600/- 2. Annual Income adding Future Prospect @ 40% Rs. 54,000/- + Rs. 21,600 = Rs.75,600/- Rs. 93,600/- + Rs. 37,440/- = Rs. 1,31,040 3. Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses @ 1/2 Rs. 37,800/- Rs. 65,520/- 4. Annual Income after applying Multiplier(17) Rs. 37,800/- x 17 = Rs. 6,42,600/- Rs.65,520/- x 17 = Rs. 11,13,840/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Parental Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL Rs. 7,12,600/- Rs. 11,83,600/- 9 12) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.7,12,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.11,83,600/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,71,240/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days, failing which, the said amount shall carry an interest @ 18% p.a. 13) Accordingly, the appeal preferred by Oriental Insurance Company Limited [MAC/670/2019] is dismissed and the appeal preferred by the claimants [MAC/350/2019] is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.19 18:23:50 +0530