1 2026:CGHC:21531 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 701 of 2020 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited By Branch Manager, Branch Office, Opposite Bhadoriya Bhavan, Court Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory, Manager Suit Legal Hub, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Suit Legal Hub Office, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, Above Axis Bank, Opp. Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Padma Nayak Wd/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 30 Years R/o Kodagudapara, Village Khotlapal, P.S. Karpavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Chinta Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 21 Years R/o Kodagudapara, Village Khotlapal, P.S. Karpavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Arso Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 19 Years R/o Kodagudapara, Village Khotlapal, P.S. Karpavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Aasman Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 17 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Claimant No. 1 Mother Namely Smt. Padma Nayak, R/o Kodagudapara, Village Khotlapal, P.S. Karpavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Gomti Nayak D/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 14 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Claimant No. 1 Mother Namely Smt. Padma Nayak, R/o Kodagudapara, Village Khotlapal, P.S. Karpavand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Banshiram Baghel S/o Baisakhuram Baghel Aged About 22 Years Occupation Truck Driver, Through Yashwant Nahata, S/o Deepak Nahata, Caste Jain, R/o Motitalab Para, Jagdalpur, District Basar Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 7 - Yashwant Nahata S/o Deepak Nahata Aged About 34 Years Caste - Jain, R/o Motitalab Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 874 of 2020 1 - Smt. Padma Nayak Wd/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 38 Years R/o Kodagudapara Village Khotalpal, P. S. Karpawand District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Chinta Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 21 Years R/o Kodagudapara Village Khotalpal, P. S. Karpawand District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Arso Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 19 Years R/o Kodagudapara Village Khotalpal, P. S. Karpawand District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Aasman Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 18 Years R/o Kodagudapara Village Khotalpal, P. S. Karpawand District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Miss Gomati Nayak D/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 14 Years Appellant No. 05, Is Minor Therefore Represented Through Nature Guardian Smt. Padma Nayak (Mother), R/o Kodagudapara Village Khotalpal, P. S. Karpawand District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus 1 - Banshiram Baghel S/o Baisakhu Ram Baghel Aged About 22 Years R/o C/o Yashwant Nahata S/o Deepak Nahata R/o Motitalabpara, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ...............(Driver Of Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Yashwant Nahata S/o Deepak Nahata Aged About 34 Years R/o C/o Yashwant Nahata S/o Deepak Nahata R/o Motitalabpara, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ...............(Owner Of Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Branch Office Opposite Bhadouriya Bhawan, Court Road Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh .................(Insurance Co.), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Claimants : Mr. PK Tulsyan, Advocate 3 For Insurance Company : Mr. BN Nande, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 08.05.2026 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the question of the facts and law involved and being arising out of a common award, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. MAC-874-2020 has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) by the Claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 03.12.2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,47,500/- as compensation for the death of Samjo Nayak, who died in a road accident took place on 15.09.2018. Whereas, MAC-701-2020 has also been filed under Section 173 of the Act of 1988 by the Insurance Company, challenging the same awarded dt. 03.12.2019, whereby liability to pay compensation to the claimants has been fastened upon them. 3. Learned counsel for the Claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.6000/- per month which should be Rs.8100/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Even on the head of loss of consortium less amount has been awarded, which ought to have been 4 Rs.40,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/- Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the offending vehicle was wrongly implanted in the accident in question in order to obtain compensation, as the same was not involved in the accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. Thus, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Appeal of the Insurance Company: 6. In the case at hand, a careful perusal of the record would show that the Insurance Company has neither took any plea before the Claims Tribunal that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident in question or was wrongly implanted in order to obtain compensation nor adduced any evidence with regard to the same. Therefore, the said ground cannot be entertained at this stage and, as such, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Company. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. Appeal of the Claimants: 7. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of 5 deceased to be Rs.6000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.8100/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Even on the head of loss of consortium less amount has been awarded, which ought to have been Rs.40,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/-. 8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.6000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/- Rs.8100/- x 12 = Rs.97,200/- 2 Future Prospect (+) 25% (i.e. Rs.18,000/-) = Rs.90,000/- (+) 25% (i.e. Rs.24,300/-) = Rs.1,21,500/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs.22,500) = Rs. 67,500/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs.30,375/-) = Rs.91,125/- 4. Multiplier (x) 13 = Rs.8,77,500/- (x) 13 = Rs.11,84,625/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,40,000/- Rs.40,000/- x 5 = 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.10,47,500/- Rs.14,14,625/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.10,47,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.14,14625/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,47,500/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,67,125/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants i.e. MAC-874-2020 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company i.e. MAC- 701-2020 is dismissed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if