1 2026:CGHC:22752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1749 of 2019 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Office, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 – Chintaram, S/o. Late Shri Amarlal Lodhi, Aged About 47 Years, R/o. Village - Jhuranadi, Thana And Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 – Girjabai, W/o. Chintaram Lodhi, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village - Jhuranadi, Thana And Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. .....(Claimants) 3 - Pappu Kumar Verma, S/o. Ram Kumar Verma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Bangali House Kandrapara, Thana - Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh……...(Driver) 4 - Mahendra Kumar Verma, S/o. Mordhwaj Verma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o. Bhaisatara, Thana Dhumka, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.......(Owner) ... Respondents ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.05.14 16:17:12 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 19.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No.42/2016 by which the claim application of the claimants is allowed and liability has been fastened upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation. 2. Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company, would submit that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit to ply the offending vehicle on the date of accident, which has been proved by Punit Rathore, Law Officer of the Insurance Company, therefore, the appellant be exonerated from its liability. 3 3. Ms. Pooja Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/ respondents No.1 & 2, would submit that the officer of the R.T.O., who is permit issuing authority, has not been examined and the owner and driver remained exparte before the Claims Tribunal, therefore, the claimants cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice. She would further submit that the just & proper compensation has not been awarded, therefore, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 5. Though the appellant/insurance company has taken a plea that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle and Punit Rathore, Law Officer of the insurance company has been examined, who made a self-serving statement that the owner of the vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate to ply the offending vehicle, but the officer of the R.T.O. has not been examined to prove that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle on the date of accident and in absence of which, it has not been proved that the owner of the vehicle did not have valid permit on the date of accident. As such, I 4 do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the insurance company and accordingly, the same deserves to be and hereby dismissed. 6. So far as the cross-objection filed by the claimants for enhancing the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,500/-, which ought to have been assessed Rs. 6,549/- per month and also the compensation under the head of future prospects has not been awarded, therefore, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation : - Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/- per annum Rs. 6,549/- per month i.e. Rs. 78,588/- per annum Future prospects Nil Add future prospects @ 40% : Rs. 78,588 + 31,435 = Rs. 1,10,023/- Deduction of ½ towards personal expenses Rs. 54,000 – 27,000 = Rs. 27,000/- Rs. 1,10,023 – 55,011 = Rs. 55,011/- Multiplier Rs. 27,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,59,000/- Rs. 55,011 x 18 = Rs. 9,90,198/- Loss of consortium Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 80,000/- (40,000 x 2) Loss of Estate Nil Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 4,89,000/- Rs. 11,00,198/- 5 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,89,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 11,00,198/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 4,89,000/- already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,11,198/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is dismissed and the cross-objection of the claimants is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok