1 2026:CGHC:22046 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1858 of 2019 1 - Kiritram Verma S/o Shri Kejauram Verma Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Dhelki, Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Lokuram Verma S/o Kiritram Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dhelki, Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Super Splendor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04-Dx-4534), 2 - Galeshwar Verma S/o Kiritram Verma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dhelki, Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Super Splendor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04-Dx-4534) 3 - Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited 4th Floor D.B. City Corporate Park, Plot No. 1 Block No.9, Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Super Splendor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04-Dx-4534), 4 - Vedkumar Verma S/o Kiritram Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Pandri Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Rukhmadi Verma D/o Kiritram Verma Aged About 36 Years W/o Bhuvneshwar Verma, R/o Prem Nagar Babbu Plot, Goura Chowk, Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Miss Harneet Kaur on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma Advocate. MAC No. 1849 of 2019 1 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office Number 403, 4th Floor, D B, City Corporate Park, Flat Number 1, Block Number 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.05.12 11:27:14 +0530 2 Versus 1 - Kiritram Verma S/o Kjauram Verma Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Thalki, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lokuram Verma S/o Kiritram Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Thalki, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Galeshwar Verma S/o Kiritram Verma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Thalki, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Vedkumar Verma S/o Kiritram Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Pandri Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Rukhmani Verma D/o Kiritram Verma Aged About 36 Years W/o Bhubeneshwar Verma, R/o Prem Nagar, Bablu Plot, Goura Chowk, Mowa Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Miss Harneet Kaur on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma Advocate. For Respondents No.1 : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 11/05/2026 1. Against the impugned award dated 23.07.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.06/2019, MAC No.1849/2019 has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking setting aside of the impugned award and to exonerate it from liability to pay compensation whereas MAC No.1858/2019 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Since common question of law and fact is involved in these Appeals for adjudication, they are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3 MAC No. 1849 of 2019 3. Miss Harneet Kaur learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the subject vehicle was falsely involved in the accident in order to recover compensation amount and as such, the vehicle was not involved in the accident and, therefore, the Insurance Company be exonerated from liability to pay compensation. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the claimant would submit that just and proper compensation has not been paid and, therefore, compensation amount deserves to be enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Though the Insurance Company has taken a plea in the written statement that the vehicle was falsely involved in the accident, but no evidence has been led to establish the plea that the vehicle was falsely involved in the accident and as such, the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed for want of evidence to establish the fact of false involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 1858 of 2019 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that present is a death case, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded 4 in favour of the claimant deserves to be enhanced. As such, the claimant will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this Court:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.5,000/- x 12 = Rs.60,000/- Rs.7,930 x 12 = Rs.95,160/- 2. 10% Future prospects (+) 10% of Rs.60,000/- = Rs.6,000/- + 60,000 = Rs.66,000/- Rs.9,516 + Rs.95,160 = Rs.1,04,676/- 3. deduction (-1/3) Rs.66,000 x 1/3 =22,000 = Rs.44,000/- Rs.1,04,676/ x 1/3 = Rs.34,892/- = Rs.69,784/- 4. Multiplier Rs.44,000 x 11 =4,84,000/- Rs.69,784/- x 11 = Rs.7,67,624/- 5. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000 Grand Total Rs.5,54,000/- Rs.9,57,624/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹5,54,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹9,57,624/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹5,54,000/-, the claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹4,03,624/-. The respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim 5 application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. In the result, the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Appeal filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve