1 2026:CGHC:22547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 502 of 2019 1 - Vishamber Rajwade S/o Abeer Sai Aged About 42 Years Caste - Rajwar, Village - Baroul, Police Station And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - Sagar Ram Dewangan S/o Chaetan Ram Aged About 19 Years Caste - Panika, R/o Parsapara, Police Station And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle) 2 - Vimal Sharma S/o Devchand Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village, Krishnapur, Police Station And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle) 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.05.14 11:45:35 +0530 2 For Appellant : Ms. Kiran Sahu on behalf of Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocates For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ravi Singh on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocates For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate As Amicus Curiae : Mr. Ratan Pusty along with Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocates SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 13.05.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 13/02/2019 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur in Claim Case No. 74/2017 whereby compensation of Rs. 67,914/- has been awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant for the injuries suffered by him and compensation of Rs. 70,000/- has been awarded for the death of his son namely Arjun, aged about 16 years. 3 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced considering the injuries suffered by him and the treatment undergone by him accordingly as well as for the death of his minor son, aged about 16 years, who died in the said accident. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference as the appellant, being father of deceased Arjun, was not dependent upon him which has also been recorded by the Claims Tribunal in paragraph 19 of the award. They would further submit that in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others1, the principle of pay and recover ought to have been applied by the Claims Tribunal. 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 4 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated by the Claims Tribunal and the liability of payment of compensation has rightly been fastened upon owner and driver of the vehicle. At the best, direction of pay and recover can be made. 5. Learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate and in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and Others2, in a similar set of facts and circumstances as the present case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of a 10 year old boy considering the fact that he assisted his parents in their agricultural occupation and held that had he been alive, he would have certainly contributed substantially to the family by working hard and after taking his notional income as Rs. 30,000/- per annum applied a multiplier of 2 (2014) 1 SCC 244 5 15, as such, the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. In the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of a 10 year old boy considering the fact that he assisted his parents in their agricultural occupation and held that had he been alive he would certainly have contributed substantially to the family by working hard and after taking his notional income as Rs. 30,000/- per annum and applying a multiplier of 15, proceeded to grant Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 8. In the instant case, for the death of deceased Arjun, aged about 16 years, the Claims Tribunal has granted Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, 6 thereby, granted a total compensation of Rs. 70,000/- which in my considered opinion, is grossly inadequate and is liable to be enhanced. As such, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra), I deem it appropriate to grant additional compensation of Rs. 4,30,000/- in favour of the appellant/claimant for the death of his son. 9. In respect to the injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant, the Claims Tribunal has granted Rs. 2,514/- for medical expenses, Rs. 1,200/- for attendant’s fees, Rs. 5,000/- for transportation, Rs. 1,200/- for nutritional food, Rs. 18,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 20,000/- for pain and agony and Rs. 20,000/- for future medical treatment, thereby, granted a total compensation of Rs. 67,914/-, which is also grossly inadequate and improper, therefore, I deem it appropriate to award additional compensation of Rs. 32,086/- in favour of the appellant/claimant for the injuries suffered by him on account of the accident in question. 7 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,37,914/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 6,00,000/-. Hence, the appellant/claimant is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 4,62,086/-. In view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Swaran Singh (supra), the principle of pay and recover is applied and it is directed that the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company will firstly pay the compensation to the appellant/claimant and thereafter, recover it from respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. 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 @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 08/08/2017 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8 8. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the instant appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet