1 (MAC No. 407 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:49250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 407 of 2022 1 - Divisional Manager The United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Bramh Road, Near Kumkum Hotel, Nagar Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh Through In-Charge, T.P. Hub, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st Floor, Lic Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sahodari W/o Late Devmun Yadav Aged About 65 Years Occupation - Nothing, R/o Village Kutku (Samri) Post Samri, Thana Samripat, Tehsil Samri (Kusmi) District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 2 - Parshu Yadav S/o Late Shri Devmun Yadav Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Agriculture And Labour, R/o Village Kutku (Samri) Post Samri, Thana Samripat, Tehsil Samri (Kusmi) District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - Omprakash Yadav S/o Late Shri Devmun Yadav Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Service (Panchayat Secretary), R/o Village Kutku (Samri) Post Samri, Thana Samripat, Tehsil Samri (Kusmi) District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Surajmani Yadav D/o Late Shri Devmun Yadav Aged About 45 Years Occupation - House Wife And Anganwadi Worker, R/o Village Kutku (Samri) Post Samri, Thana Samripat, Tehsil Samri (Kusmi) District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 5 - Prakash Ram Yadav @ Prakash Ram S/o Somnath Yadav @ Phagunath Ram Aged About 22 Years Occupation - Tractor Driver, R/o Villager Jabar, Post - Maharajganj, P.S. And Tehsil ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.09.26 12:03:39 +0530 2 (MAC No. 407 of 2022) Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 6 - Rajesh Singh S/o Devnarayan Singh Aged About 50 Years Occupation - Tractor Owner, R/o Ward No. 5, Nagar Panchayat Balrampur, Post Thana And Tehsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. (Owner) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant :- Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 :- Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.6 :- Ms. Sonam Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 25.09 .2025 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of award dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh, by which compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,75,400/- along with 7% per annum interest from the date of claim application has been awarded to the claimants for death of Devmun Yadav, aged about 68 years 3 (MAC No. 407 of 2022) and the liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the incident whereas he was not involved in the accident as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. He would further submit that though the multiplier of 1 has been applied by learned Claims Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation but deduction towards personal expenses has not been made which may be suitably modified. As such, this appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 would support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,14,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards attendant, Rs.1,000/- for transportation, Rs.3,000/- for special diet, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses, 4 (MAC No. 407 of 2022) Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.84,000/- for loss of dependency and thus, granted a total compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- in favour of the claimants. Though, it has rightly been contended that the amount towards personal expenses ought to have been deducted but considering the fact that compensation assessed appears to be on lower side, I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant appeal. Furthermore, I do not find any merit in the argument that the driver of the offending vehicle was falsely implicated for want of adequate pleading and necessary evidence. 6. Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!