1 2026:CGHC:22299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1734 of 2019 1 - Smt. Kalavati W/o Late Gayaram Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Chhatauna, Ward No.13, Hirri Mines, Police Station- Chakarbhatha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Uttam Kumar S/o Late Gayaram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Chhatauna, Ward No.13, Hirri Mines, Police Station- Chakarbhatha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh............(Claimants), --- Appellants versus 1 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Gangaram Ratre Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No.5 Hafa Road, Sakri, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh...........(Driver Of Mahaindra Scorpio No. C.G.10 V1205), 2 - Naresh Kumar S/o Paharu Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No.4 Shanti Nagar, Hafa Road, Sakri, Police Station- Chakarbhatha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.........(Owner Of Mahaindra Scorpio No. C.G.10 V1205) 3 - The Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-Rama Trade Center, Rajeev Plaza, in front of old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.........(Insurer Of Mahaindra Scorpio No. C.G.10 V1205).............(Non-Applicants), --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.05.13 19:32:30 +0530 2 MAC No. 808 of 2019 1 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Rama Trade Center, Rajeev Plaza, In front Of Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Mahendra Scarpio No. C.G. 10 V.1205) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Kalawati W/o Late Gayaram Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village - Chhatauna, Ward No.13 Hirri Mines, Thana - Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Uttam Kumar S/o Gayaram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Chhatauna, Ward No.13 Hirri Mines, Thana - Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 3 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Gangaram Ratre Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No.05, Hafa Road Sakri, Thana Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Mahendra Scarpio No. C.G. 10v. 1205) (Driver). 4 - Naresh Kumar S/o Paharu Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No.04, Shanti Nagar Hafa Road Sakri, Thana - Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Mahendra Scorpio No. C.G. 10V1205) (Owner) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 12/05/2026 1. Against the common award dated 25.01.2019 passed by the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (for 3 short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.412/2017, MAC No.808/2019 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.1734/2019 has been filed by the claimants 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. MAC No. 808 of 2019 3. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and it has been shown as involved in the accident in order to recover the compensation amount on account of death of the deceased and as such, the Insurance Company deserves to be exonerated from liability to pay compensation. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vipin Singh, learned counsel for the claimants 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. 4 6. The only contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. However, owner of the vehicle namely, Naresh Kumar has clearly admitted in para-3 of his evidence that his vehicle was involved in the accident and the police has seized his vehicle on 27.5.2017. Even otherwise, driver of the offending vehicle namely, Ramesh Kumar was also charge sheeted for offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. As such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the offending vehicle was owned by Naresh Kumar, driven by Ramesh Kumar and insured by the appellant/Insurance Company, which is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. Accordingly, the said finding is affirmed. As such, the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. MAC No. 1734 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 in favour of the claimants deserves to be enhanced. As such, the claimants 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 per month Rs.67,644/- Rs.67,644/- 2. Yearly Income Rs.8,11,728/- Rs.8,11,728/- 5 3. Future prospect 15% 15% 4. Yearly income including future prospect Rs.9,33,487 – 1,02,173 (tax) = Rs.8,31,314/- Rs.9,33,487 – 1,02,173 (tax) = Rs.8,31,314/- 5. Deduction ½ 1/3 6. Yearly income after deduction Rs.4,15,657/- Rs.5,54,210/- 7. Multiplier 9 9 8. Loss of dependency (Yr. Income x multiplier) Rs.37,40,913/- Rs.49,87,890/- 9. Funeral expenses + loss of estate Rs.15,000 + 15,000 = Rs.30,000/- Rs.15,000 + 15,000 = Rs.30,000/- 10. Loss of love & affection (spousal, filial, parental consortium) Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000 x 2 =Rs.80,000/- Grand Total Rs.38,10,913/- Rs.50,97,890/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹38,10,913/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹50,97,890/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹38,10,913/-, the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹12,86,977/-. The respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% 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. 6 9. In the result, the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Appeal filed by the claimants is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve