1 CGHC010110942020 2026:CGHC:29910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 731 of 2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Infront Of Rajeev Plaza, Nearby Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G.- 10 - C -9287) --- Appellant versus 1 - Ramkishore Kaushik, S/o. Prahlad Singh Kaushik, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Seepat Road, Behind Family Planing Office, Jorapara, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Tasleem Ansari, S/o. Subas Ansari, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Village Sutho, Police Station Patan, District Palamu (Jharkhand) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. - 10 - C – 9287). 3 - Anshul Jain, S/o. D.K. Jain, R/o. Vinoba Nagar, Police Station Tarbahar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G.- 10- C -9287). --- Respondents ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.07.15 15:49:59 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal with Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate & MAC No. 801 of 2020 Ramkishore Kaushik, S/o. Prahlad Singh Kaushik, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Seepat Road, Beside Family Planning Office, Jorapara Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Taslim Ansari, S/o. Subhash Ansari, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Village Sutho, Police Station Patan, District Palamu (Jharkhand) (Driver) 2 - Ansul Jain, S/o. D.K. Jain, R/o. Vinoba Nagar, Police Station Tarbahar, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Infront Of Rajeev Plaza, Near Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal with Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates 3 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 15.07.2026 1. Against the impugned award dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.450/2018, the insurance company has preferred MAC No.731/2020 seeking reduction of compensation amount; whereas the claimant has preferred MAC No.801/2020 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Since both the appeals have been arisen from one accident, they have been clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal & Mrs. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, would submit that the amount of Rs. 14,74,639/- awarded towards loss of future income to the claimant is on the higher side and, therefore, deserves to be reduced. 4. Mr. Anmol Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, would submit that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and, therefore, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 6. So far as the loss of future income is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the claimant’s monthly at Rs. 36,357/-, as he is employed in N.T.P.C. as Lab Assistant. Accordingly, the annual income of the claimant is quantified at Rs. 4,36,284/- and taking his age to be 47 years, 30% future prospect has been added and, as such, annual income comes to Rs. 5,67,169/-. Applying the multiplier of 13, the total future income is computed at Rs. 73,73,197/-. The claimant has suffered permanent disability of 20%, therefore, Rs. 14,74,639/- has been awarded, which is just & proper, which neither deserves to be enhanced nor deserves to be reduced. 7. The claimant incurred medical expenses amounting to Rs. 16,55,134/-, out of which Rs. 11,12,153/- was reimbursed by N.T.P.C. The remaining amount of Rs. 5,42,981/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is found to be correct. However, the sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded towards nutritious diet and transportation is on the lower side, the claimant is therefore entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 80,000/- under this head. Furthermore, only Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded for an attendant, hence Rs. 90,000/- is 5 enhanced for attendant. The compensation of Rs. 20,000/- awarded for physical & mental agony is also inadequate and improper, hence, a further sum of Rs. 80,000/- is awarded. 8. In view of the above, the claimant is entitled for Rs. 2,50,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 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 @ 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal of insurance company is dismissed and the appeal of claimant is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge