1 2026:CGHC:21600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2187 of 2019 1 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. City Branch, Branch OfÏce, Korba Commercial Complex Block D.T.P. Nagar Korba, District Korba ChhatÝsgarh................(Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1 - Budhwara Bai W/o Late Shri Budhram Aged About 39 Years R/o Baradwarbasti, P.S. Baradwar Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa ChhatÝsgarh............Claimant 2 - Dhananjai S/o Late Shri Budhram Aged About 20 Years R/o Baradwarbasti, P.S. Baradwar Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa ChhatÝsgarh............Claimant 3 - Ku. Usha D/o Late Shri Budhram Aged About 18 Years R/o Baradwarbasti, P.S. Baradwar Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa ChhatÝsgarh............Claimant 2 4 - Ku. Khileshwari D/o Late Shri Budhram Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Budhwarabai W/o Late Shri Budhram, R/o Baradwarbasti, P.S. Baradwar Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa ChhatÝsgarh............Claimant 5 - Deepak Kumar S/o Late Shri Budhram, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Budhwarabai W/o Late Shri Budhram, R/o Baradwarbasti, P.S. Baradwar Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa ChhatÝsgarh............Claimant 6 - Kamlesh Kumar @ Kamlesh Dewangan S/o Thakurprasad Dewangan R/o Ward No.3 Kanwarpara Rani Road, P.S. And Tahsil Champa District Janjgir Champa ChhatÝsgarh............Driver Cum Owner ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 08.05.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 30/07/2019 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti District Janjgir-Champa in Claim Case No. 30/2016 3 whereby compensation of Rs. 13,47,686/- has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants for the death of Budhram and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. Cross appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC has also been filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle on the date of the accident, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant/Insurance Company from the liability of payment of compensation and at the best, the Tribunal could have applied the principle of pay and recover and could have directed the appellant/Insurance Company to firstly pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter, recover it from the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, therefore, the impugned award to that extent is liable to be set aside. He would also submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court qua the question of quantum. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is 4 inadequate and is liable to be enhanced as income of the deceased would be Rs. 9,000/- and compensation of Rs. 40,000/- x 5 = 2,00,000/- ought to have been granted under loss of consortium instead of Rs. 40,000/-, thus, the impugned award be modified and the compensation may accordingly be enhanced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. Appeal of the appellant/Insurance Company :- 5. So far as the plea of the appellant/Insurance Company is concerned, it has thoroughly been examined by the Claims Tribunal and after a detailed examination of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle namely Kamlesh Kumar had a valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle on the date of the accident, which in my considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any merit in this appeal. 5 Cross-appeal of respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants :- 6. A careful perusal of the award would show that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,500/- whereas it should be Rs. 9,000/- which has duly been proved by the claimants. Further the Claims Tribunal has only granted Rs. 40,000/- under loss of consortium whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 40,000/- x 5 = Rs. 2,00,000/-. 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is calculating the compensation as stated below :- Heads of Compensation Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income Rs. 6,500/- x 12 = Rs. 78,000/- Rs. 9,000/- x 12 = Rs. 1,08,000/- Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 31,200/- = Rs. 1,09,200/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 40,320/- = Rs. 1,48,320/- Deduction (-) 1/4th i.e. Rs. 27,300/- = Rs. 81,900/- (-) 1/4th i.e. Rs. 37,080/- = Rs. 1,11,240/- Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs. 12,28,500/- (x) 15 = Rs. 16,68,600/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- x 5 = Rs. 2,00,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 49,186/- Rs. 49,186/- Total Rs. 13,47,686 Rs. 19,47,786/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 13,47,686/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 6 Rs. 19,47,786/-. Hence, the claimants are held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 6,00,100/-. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months 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 i.e. 12/05/2016 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is hereby dismissed whereas the cross-appeal filed by respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet