1 2026:CGHC:5262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 675 of 2023 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, Address Branch No. 1, Kutchari Chowk, Jail Road Raipur ..........Insurer Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04-Ln-2156 .......Non-Applicant No. 2, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bharosaram Sahu S/o Hemlal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village And Post Devri Police Station Vidhan Sabha ........Claimants, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sarojani Bai Sahu W/o Bharosaram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village And Post Devri Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Fuleshwari Sahu D/o Bharosaram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Devri Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Indrani Sahu D/o Bharosaram Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village And Post Devri Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Pradeep Banchhor S/o Shri Kumar Bancchor R/o Village- Demar, Police Station- Patan, ..........Driver And Owner Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04-Ln-2156, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/ Insurance Company : Shri Harishankar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Shri Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board NIRMALA RAO 2 30.01.2026 1. The appellant/ Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur in Claim Case No. 839 of 2019 dated 21.12.2022, whereby learned Claims Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.12,04,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum on account of death of Manish Sahu. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 4.11.2018, Manish Sahu alongwith Tikeshwar Yadav were going to village Gharsiwa on a motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.09 LT 3607. When they reached near Om Petrol Pump, Gharsiwa, the driver of a Magic vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04 LN 2156 by driving rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle, resultantly, Manish Sahu and Tikeshwar Yadav sustained injuries and during the course of treatment, Manish Sahu succumbed to death. A claim case was filed by the parents and siblings of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 25 years and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs.20,14,000/-. Respondent No.1, owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. The Insurance Company filed its reply and took a plea that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license. It was also pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal framed issues, the parties led their evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would argue that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven in absence of a valid permit. He would submit that according to seizure memo Ex.P/7, the validity of the permit was from 14.11.2018 to 13.9.2019, and on the date of accident i.e. 4.11.2018 the vehicle did not have a valid permit and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company. He would further contend that the deceased was not a salaried person but the learned Tribunal awarded 50% of the income towards future prospects, which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He would pray to set aside the award. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He would submit that the Insurance Company could not prove the fact that on the date of accident the vehicle was being plied without a valid permit. He would submit that the Insurance Company failed to examine any RTO Official to substantiate its claim. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has discussed this issue at length and rejected the contention raised by the Insurance Company. 5. With regard to grant of 50% of income towards future prospects, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 would submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly granted the said amount. He would submit that the claimant had filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. It is argued that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is on the lower 4 side and that the minimum wage matrix ought to have been applied. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of November, 2018 was Rs.8,140/-. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal granted compensation for loss of consortium to one of the parents and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company would submit that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. He would submit that the cross-appeal preferred by the claimants deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The appellant/ Insurance Company has placed reliance on the property seizure memo Ex.P/7 wherein it is mentioned that the permit issued to the offending vehicle was effective from 14.11.2018 to 13.9.2019. However, the Insurance Company failed to examine any witness to prove this fact. The Insurance Company could not adduce documentary evidence to establish the fact that on the date of accident i.e. 4.11.2018, the offending vehicle had no valid and effective permit. Witness – Abhishek Verma (NAW-1) has been examined by the Insurance Company but he failed to demonstrate that the offending vehicle was without a valid permit on the date of accident. Learned Tribunal considered this aspect in detail and rejected the contention made by the Insurance Company, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to permit. 5 9. In the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if deceased was a salaried person aged between 0 and 39 years, the claimants would be entitled to get 50% of the income towards future prospects and 40% if the deceased was non-salaried. 10. In the present case, admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor and non- salaried. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should have granted 40% of the income towards future prospects and the compensation awarded under this head requires reconsideration. 11. A perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is on the lower side considering the minimum wage matrix. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of November, 2018 was Rs.8,400/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of the deceased. Further, the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium to one of the parents. Thus, the compensation requires reconsideration and the same is being revisited herein-below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 7,000 x 12 = Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 8,140 x 12 = Rs. 97,680/- 2. Deduction 1/2 (84,000 – 42,000 = 42,000/-) 1/2 (97,680 – 48,840 = 48,840/-) 3. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs. 7,56,000/- (42,000 x 11) (x) 18 = Rs. 8,79,120/- (48,840 x 18) 4. Future Prospect 50% of Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.3,78,000/-) 40% of Rs.12,30,768/- (Rs.3,51,648/-) 6 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium (for claimant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 8. Loss of Consortium(for claimant No.2) -- Rs.48,000/- TOTAL Rs.12,04,000/- Rs. 13,48,768/- 12. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.12,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,48,768/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 12,04,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,44,768/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per anuum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal, till its realization. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 13. In the result, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and the cross-appeal preferred by the claimants are partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi