1 CGHC010188862019 2026:CGHC:30386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1026 of 2019 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Madina Building, Katcheri Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Insurer Of Offending Motorcycle Bearing No. C.G. -04-H.V.- 7477), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Basant Kaur Wd/o Late Gurucharan Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o R.D.A. Colony, Heerpur, Police Station Kabir Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nilesh Koshta S/o Pawan Koshta Aged About 44 Years R/o Slice-3, Near Bliens School (Prerna) Housing Board Colony, Heerapur, Raipur, Police Station Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Registered Drive -Cum Owner Of Offending Motorcycle Bearing No. C.G. 04-H.V.7177), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.07.20 10:32:00 +0530 2 SB- Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 17/07/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) against the impugned award dated 30/01/2019 passed by learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 677/2015 whereby compensation of Rs. 8,06,000/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1/claimant for the death of Sukhchain Singh and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 2. Cross objection on behalf of respondent No. 1/claimant under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC read with Rule 242(3) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver-cum- owner of the vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident which is apparent from the charge-sheet of the criminal offence which was registered against him, as such, the Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant would submit that no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to prove 3 that the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle did not have valid and effective license to ply the vehicle, as such, the Insurance Company has rightly been fastened with the liability of payment of compensation. She would further submit that for loss of consortium, only Rs. 10,000/- has been granted by the Claims Tribunal, which may suitably be enhanced by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. A careful perusal of the record would show that though the plea has been taken on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company that the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident, however, no evidence has been led by them to prove the said fact. As such, I do not find any merit in the appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company. 7. So far as the cross-appeal preferred by respondent No. 1/claimant is concerned, it appears from the impugned award that the Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 7,56,000/- for loss of dependency, Rs. 30,000/- for funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, which totals to Rs. 7,96,000/-, however, it has inadvertently been typed as Rs. 8,06,000/-. This Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- granted for loss of consortium is on the lower side and is thus, enhanced by Rs. 30,000/-. Since, Rs. 10,000/- has 4 already been enhanced by the Claims Tribunal inadvertently in total compensation, this Court enhances total compensation by Rs. 20,000/- and thereby, grants a total compensation of Rs. 8,26,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1/claimant. Appellant is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 12/10/2015 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-objection filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Harneet