1 2026:CGHC:10801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 486 of 2023 • Manager, Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Gurugovind Singh Ward, 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, Pandri, Opp. L.I.C. Building, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Tractor No. CG-07/N.A./2942, Policy No. 3380/01582285/000/00) ... Appellant versus 1. Jivanlal, S/o Late Guhira Anant, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Dhobnikala, Post Pratappur, Thana & Tehsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Claimant). 2. Smt. Chandrakiran, W/o Jivanlal Anant, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Dhobnikala, Post Pratappur, Thana & Tehsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Claimant). 3. Ishwar Khare, D/o Late Muhriram Khare, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Gopalpur, Post Nandal, Thana & Tehsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Driver And Owner Of Tractor No. CG-07/N.A./2942). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3. : Mr. Arvind Prasad Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 02/03/2026 1. Heard. 2. The insurance company has preferred this appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 03.01.2023 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bemetara (C.G.) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal) in Claim Case No.185/2019 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the learned Claims DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 Tribunal partly allowed the claim case of the claimants and awarded compensation amount to the tune of Rs.47,74,000/-, with an interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Jaleshwar Anant. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on 27.10.2019, the Omni Car of the deceased was dashed by the driver of the offending Tractor bearing Registration No. CG-07-NA-2942. In the said accident, Jaleshwar Anant sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death. The claimants, who are parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’), wherein they pleaded that the age of the deceased was 32 years and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. The Insurance Company took specific plea that notice under Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act was not issued to the insurer. Further, plea was taken that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and parties led their evidence and thereafter award was passed. 4. Mr. Rastogi, counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that though, specific plea was taken with regard to the issuance of notice under Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act, but same has not been considered by the learned Claims Tribunal. He would pray to set aside the impugned award. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2/claimants would submit that compliance of provisions of 134(c) of the M.V. Act is not mandatory in nature. He would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal has considered all the issues raised by the Insurance Company. He would contended that respondents No.1 & 2/claimants have filed cross appeal for enhancement of compensation. He would submits that though the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income 3 of the deceased properly, but failed to grant adequate compensation for loss of consortium. Hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation. 6. At this stage, Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation to the claimants and the cross appeal preferred by the claimants deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 8. Section 134 of M.V. Act, deals with duty of driver in case of accident or injury to a person. Sub-section 134(c) of the M.V. Act lays down an obligation on driver to provide following information in writing to the insurer - (i) insurance policy number and period of its validity; (ii)date, time and place of accident; (iii)particulars of the persons injured or killed in the accident; (iv)name of the driver and the particulars of his driving license. 9. The claimants have filed the claim case with all particulars and notice was served upon the insurance company. After service of notice, the information described in Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act could have been gathered by the insurance company before the learned Claims Tribunal. The insurance company failed to examine any witness to demonstrate that the information required under Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act were not available, and therefore, they could not defend case properly. As the provision of Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act is directory in nature, therefore, contention made by Mr. Rastogi is hereby rejected. 10. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant/insurance company deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 11. With regard to the enhancement of compensation, perusal of award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.40,000/-under the head of loss of consortium, whereas, the number of dependents/claimants are two. The learned Claims Tribunal should have awarded the sum of Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants on the said head. 12. Accordingly, the cross appeal/cross objection preferred by the respondents No.1 & 2/claimants is partly allowed and the respondents No.1 & 2/claimants shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.48,000/- + Rs.48,000/- (total amount Rs.96,000/-) under the head of loss of consortium. 13. It is further directed that appellant/Insurance Company shall pay enhanced amount of Rs.96,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants, in addition to the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, within a period of 60 days from today. 14. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Deepti Jha