1 CGHC010166972024 2026:CGHC:29816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1118 of 2024 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Head Office, E-8 Riicoi, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through - Regional Manager Having Regional Office At Plot No. 1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Besides R.K. Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Saroj Patel W/o Late Teklal Patel Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Ramtek P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Village Peepalkhuta, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Tamanna Patel D/o Late Teklal Patel Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Saroj Patel, R/o Village Ramtek P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Village Peepalkhuta, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Sanjana Patel D/o Late Teklal Patel Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Saroj Patel, R/o Village Ramtek P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Village Peepalkhuta, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vishwanath Patel S/o Daniram Patel Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Ramtek, P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.07.17 11:04:56 +0530 2 5 - Kaushaliya Patel W/o Vishwanath Patel Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Ramtek, P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 6 - Tikeshwar Bariha S/o Ghurau Bariha Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Ramtek, P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Cum Driver) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 5 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (14.07.2026) 1. This is an insurer’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 06.10.2023 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No.37/2021. 2. The gist of claim before the Claims Tribunal was that on 30.12.2020 at 2:00 PM, near Heturam Patel’s field, Gram Ramtek, Chowki Kankabira, PS Sarangarh, the driver of Tractor CG-13/AB-7837, Respondent No.6 herein namely Tikeshwar Bariha drove the tractor rashly and negligently and hit Teklal Patel due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died during treatment. On the report of the incident being lodged at concerned Police Station, crime was registered. 3. The claimants (respondents 1 to 5) who are the wife, 3 children, mother and father of the deceased had filed a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.33,59,600/-. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, vide impugned award, awarded total compensation of Rs.27,84,250/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased (respondents 1 to 5) for their irreparable loss, in which, the Insurance Company has been held liable for payment of compensation, against which this appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company for exoneration from its liability. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of both parties, has found that the victim Teklal died in an accident caused by the offending vehicle and that he was a third party. Relying on Exhibit P-9, the Tribunal has treated him as a salaried person working as Vice-Principal and has assessed his salary at Rs. 15,000/- per month. His age has been found to be 40 years. 25% has been added towards future prospects. 1/4 deduction has been applied. Multiplier of 15 has been applied. Along with other heads, a total award of Rs. 27,84,250/- has been passed. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has argued that the injured, Teklal Patel, was sitting on the tractor-drawn plow. Whereas, as per law, no person other than the driver is permitted to sit in a tractor. No premium was also paid for carrying any such passenger. The Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has further argued that Vijay and Vishwanath Patel, in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have stated that the deceased was sitting on the 4 tractor-drawn plow. He was not a third party. Therefore, the award passed against the Insurance Company is not sustainable. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned award may be set aside. 6. The Learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 5/claimants has argued that Teklal Patel was a third party. At the time of the accident, the injured was in the field when the tractor driver, driving rashly and negligently, caused the accident. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is proper and justified. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. On behalf of the claimants, Smt. Saroj Patel, wife of the deceased, and Chakradhar Patel, Director of Lakshya English Medium School, Kargipali, Sarangarh, have been examined. On the other hand, Tikeshwar Bariha, driver of the offending vehicle, has examined himself. Whereas, on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, Shubham Yadav, Legal Manager, and Sewant Kumar Yadav have been examined. Except for Tikeshwar Bariha, the driver, none of the other witnesses are eye-witnesses to the accident. 9. Tikeshwar Bariha/the driver himself has stated that while he was returning home from ploughing the field in his tractor, Teklal was coming from the opposite direction on the way. He suddenly fainted and fell in front of his tractor. He tried to save him, but Teklal came under the wheel of the tractor, as a result of which Teklal died. 10. In support of their case, the claimants have filed copies of the police charge-sheet documents, marked as 5 Exhibit A-1 to A-9. As per these documents, a final report under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code has been filed against this very driver. The statement of Tikeshwar Bariha that Teklal Patel was coming from the opposite direction in front of his tractor when the accident occurred, has not been rebutted. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of the accident, Teklal Bariha was a passenger in his vehicle or sitting on the tractor-drawn plow. 11. The Legal Manager of the appellant Insurance Company, Shubham Yadav, has emphasized that at the time of the accident, Teklal was sitting unauthorized on the tractor-drawn plow attached to the tractor, and that is when the accident occurred. Thus, he was not a third party. In support of his statement, Sewant Kumar Yadav, Data Entry Operator at the District Transport Office, Raigarh, has stated that no person other than the driver is permitted to sit in a tractor. 12. It is pertinent to note that both the witnesses are not eye-witnesses to the incident, and the statement of Tikeshwar, the driver of the offending vehicle, has not been rebutted. As far as the Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has mentioned in his arguments that in the statements of some witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the description of the incident given in the police final report, it is stated that the deceased was sitting on the tractor-drawn plow at the rear of the tractor at the time of the accident. With regard to that, neither the concerned witnesses have been examined, nor has the Investigating Officer been examined. Therefore, the documents being referred to do not have any legal evidentiary value because the person who made such a statement or the person who recorded the description of the 6 incident has not been examined before the Tribunal. 13. In view of the statement of the driver, Tikeshwer and the above discussion, this Court finds that, according to the facts and evidence available on record, there is no illegality or irregularity in the conclusion of the Tribunal that Teklal Patel was not present in the offending vehicle but was a third party. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE CLAIMANTS 14. Learned Counsel for the claimants has argued that as per the appointment letter Exhibit P-9, which was duly proved by Chakradhar Patel, Director of Lakshya English Medium School, Kargipali, Sarangarh, the salary of the deceased was Rs. 17,000/-. However, the Tribunal has assessed it at only Rs. 15,000/-. His second argument is that the deceased was a salaried person, whose future prospects ought to have been assessed at 30%. It is further argued that the amount awarded under other heads should also be enhanced. 15. Opposing the appeal of the claimants, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the assessment of salary made by the Tribunal is correct. It is further argued that the age of the deceased as 40 years has been assessed based on the Postmortem Report, which has been recorded only as an estimate. Whereas, the claimants themselves have mentioned the age of the deceased as 42 years in the claim petition, which amounts to an admission on their part. Therefore, on the basis of 42 years, the 7 multiplier should be 14 instead of 15. 16. As per the Appointment letter Exhibit P-9, the salary of the deceased was Rs. 17,000/-. There appears to be no reason to reduce the same. Therefore, his monthly income is assessed at Rs. 17,000/-. 17. Since the claimants themselves have admitted the age of the deceased to be 42 years in their claim petition, the age of the deceased is determined to be 42 years instead of 40 years. And since he was a salaried person, in light of the case law National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, 30% is awarded towards future prospects. The multiplier is modified from 15 to 14, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 18. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 15000 x 12 = 1,80,000/- Rs. 17000 x 12 = 2,04,000/- 2. Future prospect (+)25% (i.e. Rs. 45,000) = 2,25,000/- (+)30% (i.e. Rs. 61,200) = 2,65,200/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 56250) = (-) 1/4 (i.e. 66300) = 1,98,900/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 8 1,68,750/- 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = 25,31,250/- (x) 14 = 27,84,600/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 2,53,000/- Rs. 2,53,000/- (16500+16500+220 000) Total Rs. 27,84,250/- Rs. 30,37,600/- 19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.27,84,250/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.30,37,600/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.27,84,250/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,53,350/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the cross-appeal before this Court, i.e., 02.01.2025 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed and the cross-appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 21. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham