1 2026:CGHC:865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2308 of 2019 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bilaspur In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Rama Trade Centre, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Amola Dhobi W/o Late Shantu Aged About 55 Years R/o Navadih Ward No. 18 Sepat District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Puspa Dhopi D/o Late Shantu Dhobi Aged About 35 Years R/o Navadih Ward No. 18 Sepat District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramaavtar S/o Late Santu Dhobi Aged About 42 Years R/o Navadih Ward No. 18 Sepat District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Anita Dhobi W/o Ramaavtar Aged About 35 Years R/o Navadih Ward No. 18 Sepat District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Prakash Dhobi S/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 15 Years Minor, Natural Guardian Mother Pushpa Dhobi , R/o Navadih Ward No. 18 Sepat District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Deepak Dhobi S/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 15 Years Minor, Natural Guardian Mother Pushpa Dhobi , R/o Navadih Ward No. 18 Sepat District - Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Choote Dhobi S/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 13 Years Minor, Natural Guardian Mother Pushpa Dhobi , R/o Navadih Ward No. 18 Sepat District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Jagmohan Dhobi S/o Ramaavtar Aged About 17 Years Minor, Natural Guardian Mother Anita Dhobi , R/o Navadih Ward No. 18 Sepat District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Rupesh Dhobi S/o Ramaavtar Aged About 10 Years Minor, Natural Guardian Mother Anita Dhobi , R/o Navadih Ward No. 18 Sepat District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Lakhan Lal Yadav S/o Ramji Yadav R/o Mopka, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of The Bus No. C.G. 10. G. 0167), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 11 - Shankar Nishad S/o Shivratan Nishad Resident Devrikhurd, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver of The Bus No. C.G. 10. G. 0167), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 9 : Mr. Pravin Soni, Advocate along with Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 07/01/2026 1. The insurance company/appellant has challenged the award dated 26.08.2019 passed by the learned VIII th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 590 of 2016, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of 8,15,400/- along with interest at ₹ the rate of 6% per annum on account of the death of Santu Dhobi. 2. Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that on 21.12.2012 at about 8:00 PM, the driver of the offending 3 bus bearing registration No. CG-10-G-0167, by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. He would further submit that the claimants, widow and children, brother, and sister of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein it was pleaded that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 48 years. He would argue that on the date of filing of the claim petition, the age of the deceased was shown to be below 48 years, whereas the age of the elder son was shown as 42 years, leaving a difference of only six years between the age of father and son, which is not proper. He would further argue that the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 48 years and applied a multiplier of 13. However, in the post-mortem report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 70 years, and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the said age while determining compensation. On the aforesaid grounds, he prayed for modification of the award. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. He would submit that to establish the age of the deceased, Exhibit P/12-C, a document issued by ESIC, was produced before the learned Tribunal, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 14.10.1964. The date of accident was 21.12.2012; thus, the age of the deceased on the date of accident was 48 years. He would further submit that the insurance company failed to rebut the said document by leading any cogent evidence, therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Perusal of the record would show that the claimants mentioned the age of the deceased as 58 years in the claim petition. The age of the elder son of the deceased was mentioned as 42 years at the time of filing of 4 the claim petition. The claimants are residents of Village Nawadih, Sipat, Bilaspur. The age of the claimants was mentioned by their local counsel; however, relevant documents were not placed on record in support of age of claimants. The age of claimants mentioned in claim petition was guess work. The insurance company failed to prove age of claimants or deceased. 6. Exhibit P/12-C, a document issued by ESIC, has been placed on record to prove the age of the deceased. As per the said document, the date of birth of the deceased was 14.10.1964; thus, on the date of accident, his age was about 48 years. The learned Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on sthe said document and correctly applied the multiplier of 13. 7. Taking into consideration the above stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is hereby dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim